UDRP panels found in previous decisions that in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use widely known trademarks, no bona fide or legitimate use of a disputed domain name may reasonably be claimed (LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-03-24 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns numerous trademark registrations before the disputed domain name was registered and that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s IQOS mark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-03-19 - Case Details
ii) The Respondent’s failure to reply to the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant is further evidence of bad faith, given all the other circumstances of this case. See LEGO Juris A/S v Thai Dang,
WIPO Case No. D2018-1929.
(iii) The Panel is also satisfied that the listing of the disputed domain name for sale on domain aftermarket sites constitutes evidence of bad faith use. ...
2020-03-16 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations long before the disputed domain name was registered and that it is not affiliated with nor has it licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-01-22 - Case Details
In the Panel’s view, such conduct cannot be regarded as giving rise to rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Andrei Novakovich,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1513).
The Respondent’s use of the identical disputed domain name for its website offering for sale overlapping products is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to the Policy. ...
2021-03-19 - Case Details
page 5
As established in previous UDRP decisions, the awareness of a third party’s trademark while registering
a domain name is an indication of bad faith (e.g. LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte, WIPO Case No. D2010-
0494; Caixa D’Estalvis / Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2022-03-23 - Case Details
In the Panel’s view, such conduct cannot be regarded as giving rise to rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Andrei Novakovich,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1513).
The Respondent also has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name then resolving to a parking Wordpress webpage (see, e.g., Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...
2021-10-26 - Case Details
In the Panel’s view, such conduct cannot be regarded as giving rise to rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Andrei Novakovich,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1513).
The Panel also finds that the nature of the services provided on the website at the disputed domain name, in particular, downloading videos contrary to the Complainant's policies, cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial fair use (see, e.g., Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. ...
2021-05-25 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns numerous trademark registrations in many jurisdictions long before the disputed domain name was registered and that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s MOTUL mark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-03-12 - Case Details
Under such circumstances previous Panels accepted the language of the proceeding to be English (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Satoru Nakamura,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0682).
The Panel further notes that no objection was made by the Respondent to the proceeding being in English nor any request made that the proceedings be conducted in Russian, the language of the Registration Agreement. ...
2020-01-29 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns numerous trademark registrations in many jurisdictions long before the disputed domain name was registered and that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s KOHLER mark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-01-28 - Case Details
The addition of ‘shop’ to the trademark … can therefore evoke the activity of the companies of the Complainant’s group”); LEGO Juris A/S v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Neckar Rhein,
WIPO Case No. D2017-2276 (“the addition of the word ‘shop’ adds no distinctiveness and does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity.”) ...
2020-01-28 - Case Details
In the Panel’s view, such conduct cannot be regarded as giving rise to rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Andrei Novakovich,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1513).
The Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name on a website offering overlapping services is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy. ...
2020-11-04 - Case Details
En este sentido véanse anteriores resoluciones, tales como el caso LEGO Juris A/S c. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2021-01-04 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the same approach shall be applied in the present case for the applicable ccTLD “.com.ua”, which is a standard registration requirement for the Disputed Domain Name and shall be disregarded for the confusing similarity test (See LEGO Juris A/S v. Anton Obrezkov,
WIPO Case No. DUA2020-0001).
In cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark, the Panel finds that in the present case the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s registered CEMOY trademark in its entirety.
...
2020-12-03 - Case Details
In addition, 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. ...
2020-10-19 - Case Details
UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety (e.g., Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Milen Radumilo,
WIPO Case No. DCO2020-0090; LEGO Juris A/S v. ken Teo,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2380; Sanofi v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Todd Peter,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-12-13 - Case Details
D2021-0774; Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Milen Radumilo,
WIPO Case No. DCO2020-0090; LEGO Juris A/S v. ken Teo,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2380; Sanofi v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Todd Peter,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-11-25 - Case Details
D2021-0600; Carrefour SA v. Matias Barro Mares,
WIPO Case No. D2020-3088; LEGO Juris A/S v. ken Teo,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2380; Sanofi v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Todd Peter,
WIPO Case No. ...
2022-02-09 - Case Details
The owners and shareholders of the Complainant are descendants of Ole Kirk Kristiansen, the founder of the globally renowned toy manufacturer, LEGO. The Complainant has adopted the name Kirk Kapital” extensively for its business operations, company name, and business designation since its establishment in 2007.
...
2022-01-21 - Case Details