Previous UDRP panels have ruled that country code Top-Level Domain ("ccTLD") suffixes generally have no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark (see Dassault (Groupe Industriel Marcel Dassault) v. Ma Xiaojuan,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1733; Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. H.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-04-29 - 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. ...
2016-04-27 - Case Details
The disputed domain name also contains the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com” but 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. ...
2016-03-21 - Case Details
Another additional element in the disputed domain name is the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") suffix ".com" but 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. ...
2016-07-15 - Case Details
The addition of the gTLD “.com” is irrelevant in determining whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. See, for example, LEGO Juris A/S v Mariusz Zielezny,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0796.
In the light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2016-07-14 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark either. 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. ...
2016-07-13 - Case Details
En este sentido véanse anteriores resoluciones, tales como el caso LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2020-07-16 - Case Details
Above.com Domain Privacy / Belcanto Investment Group Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0487; LEGO Juris A/S v. Park KyeongSook,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1195; see also WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. ...
2020-05-20 - 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
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
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 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
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
If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. (see, e.g. LEGO Juris A/S v. Anton Obrezkov,
WIPO Case No. DUA2020-0001).
Noting the facts and allegations listed above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2020-08-18 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations long before the disputed domain names were 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. ...
2020-09-09 - 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
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
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