It has been held in previous cases that knowledge of a corresponding mark at the time of the Domain Name's registration suggests bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Caixa D'Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona ("La Caixa") v. ...
2015-12-16 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark. See Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. H.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-06-02 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark. See Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. H.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-09-30 - Case Details
It has been held in previous UDRP cases that knowledge of a corresponding mark at the time of the domain name's registration suggests bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Caixa D'Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona ('La Caixa') v. ...
2016-04-22 - Case Details
It has been held in previous UDRP cases that knowledge of a corresponding mark at the time of the domain name's registration suggests bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Caixa D'Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona ("La Caixa") v. ...
2016-04-14 - Case Details
It has been held in previous UDRP decisions that knowledge of a corresponding mark at the time of the domain name’s registration can suggest bad faith. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Caixa D’Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2016-12-13 - Case Details
The addition of the word “official” is generic, and does not reduce the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's mark (See LEGO Juris A/S v. APF Media,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1095; The Fulham Football Club (1987) Limited, Tottenham Hostpur Public Limited, West Ham United Football Club PLC, Manchester United Limited, The Liverpool Football Club And Athletic Grounds Limited v. ...
2010-03-22 - Case Details
Smith is recorded as having been involved with the Respondent in other domain name disputes: see for example LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-04-30 - Case Details
Furthermore, incorporation of entirety of the QNX mark in the Domain Name without any reasonable justification is further evidence of bad faith by the Respondent. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; and Caixa D’Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2012-11-12 - Case Details
The Domain Name suggests that the related website offers coupons for the Complainant’s paint products. As noted in LEGO Juris A/S v. Private, Registration / Dohe Dot,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0753, the addition of a term that is generic or descriptive is likely to produce confusion since it creates an association with the Complainant. ...
2012-11-09 - Case Details
In certain circumstances, registration of a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark can constitute registration in bad faith due to the low likelihood that the registrant was unaware of the established rights in the mark at the time the domain name was registered. See, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. pcmaniabg, Paisiy Aleksandrov,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1965. Given Complainant’s established trademark rights in MICHELIN, the Panel finds it implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant when registering the disputed domain name .
...
2011-05-27 - Case Details
The Panel notes that if the Respondent had any such rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, one would expect him to come forward with evidence and explanations. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Hafeez Chudhary,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0502.
Under these circumstances, the Panel takes the view that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) is also satisfied.
...
2011-07-13 - Case Details
Bad faith can be found when the Respondents were aware of the Complainants’ trademark at the time of registering the Domain Name. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; and Caixa D’Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2012-03-19 - Case Details
The word “store” is a descriptive term that suggests that the Respondent’s Website offers the Complainant’s products for sale. As noted in LEGO Juris A/S v Private, Registration/Dohe Dot,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0753, the addition of a term that is generic or descriptive is likely to produce confusion since it creates an association with the Complainant. ...
2012-10-04 - Case Details
Technology Services Ltd.,
WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2008-0002; en LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2009-0052). Indien de Eisers hieraan voldoen, dan rust op de Verweerder de bewijslast aan te tonen dat hij een recht op of legitiem belang bij de Domeinnaam heeft.
...
2012-10-04 - Case Details
Rights or Legitimate Interests
According to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, in connection with the burden of proof, several decisions of UDRP panels have held that “[o]nce a Complainant establishes a prima facie showing that none of the three circumstances establishing legitimate interests or rights applies, the burden of production in this factor shifts to the Respondents to rebut the showing. ” See LEGO juris A/S v. Chung Hong Phil,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1288; Ets Leobert, SARL v.Jeonggon Seo,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-02-21 - Case Details
That said, as for the first condition, in the absence of evidence which may be construed to directly allow the panel to find bad faith at the registration date, the Panel must look at a combination of factors which, put together, might support a reasonable inference of bad faith as at the registration date, and several panels have held that registering and using domain names which correspond to well-known trademarks trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; and Sanofi-aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-09-10 - Case Details
Hinzukommt, dass das Beschwerdepanel der Ansicht ist, dass die Marke RISSKIO zwar in Italien eine gewisse Bekanntheit hat, es sich jedoch nicht um ein Kennzeichen mit einem weltweiten Bekanntheitsgrad handelt bzw. um eine sog. berühmte Marke, deren Vorliegen ein Indiz für Bösgläubigkeit sein kann (siehe e contrario: LEGO Juris A/S v. Pius Kilap Bawono,
WIPO Verfahren Nr. D2011-2188).
Die Beschwerdeführerin legt denn auch keine Belege in dieser Hinsicht vor.
...
2012-08-31 - Case Details
The Panel finds this use of the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website was done in bad faith. See LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprises Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-01-19 - Case Details
The Complainants allege that this “passive holding” shows the disputed domain name was registered as is being used in bad faith and cites a number of UDRP cases to support this, including the following:
- LEGO Juris A/S v. Domain Administrator,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1260, where the panel found:
“Also, the Panel finds no evidence that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
...
2012-01-13 - Case Details