The Respondent thus either knows or should have known of the
Complainant’s trademark or else possessed the kind of willful blindness that numerous panels have held
supports a finding of bad faith (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Domains by Proxy, Inc., DomainsByProxy.com / DBA
David Inc., WIPO Case No. D2011-1839; Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. ...
2023-07-10 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations of the CARVANA mark long
before the dates that the disputed domain names were registered and that the Complainant 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. ...
2023-07-07 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations of the CARVANA mark long
before the date that the disputed domain names were registered and that the Complainant 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. ...
2023-06-22 - Case Details
The Complainant provided evidence that it owned the SCHWALBE
trademark registrations long before the date that 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. ...
2023-05-25 - Case Details
Registration
Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No.
D2019-1991; LEGO Juris A/S v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No.
D2019-2940.
For the reasons set out above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed
domain name in bad faith and that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied.
7. ...
2023-06-13 - Case Details
Furthermore, Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name (see for instance LEGO
Juris A/S v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio
Electronico, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-04-18 - 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 names (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Andrei
Novakovich, WIPO Case No. D2016-1513).
According to section 2.13.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Panels have categorically held that the use of a
domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing,
distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of
fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. ...
2023-05-19 - Case Details
Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues,
Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. D2022‐2044), and LEGO (Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion
Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. D2021‐1813), amongst others. ...
2023-04-28 - Case Details
In fact, the Panel is persuaded that the Respondent
targeted the Complainant and its trade marks by registering the disputed domain name incorporating the
Complainant’s well-established ONEY and ONEY BANK marks. (See LEGO Juris A/S/ v. DomainPark Ltd,
David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No.
...
2023-04-28 - Case Details
Derhalve stemt de onderhavige domeinnaam op verwarringwekkende wijze overeen met het
1 Aangezien de Regeling verregaand is gebaseerd op de Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), is het vaste
jurisprudentie dat zaken die zijn beslist op grond van zowel de Regeling als de UDRP en dus WIPO Overview 3.0 relevant zijn voor
deze procedure (zie bijvoorbeeld LEGO Juris A/S v. Stichting RIBW ZWWF, WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2011-0042 en Arie Hendrik den Draak
v. RAPIDE Internet, WIPO Zaaknr. ...
2024-06-10 - Case Details
Further, the Panel also notes that the Respondent has been on the wrong side of other UDRP cases
concerning a third party brand owners which have resulted in the domain names being ordered to be
transferred (for example, LEGO Juris A/S v. yangwen chao, qiangqiang Du, WIPO Case No. D2023-0044).
This is an indication that the Respondent is a serial cybersquatter and is engaged in a pattern of bad faith
conduct which is an example of bad faith contained in paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy (WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 3.1.2).
...
2023-09-27 - Case Details
In
the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use its trademarks, the composition of the
disputed domain name, and the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a look-a-like version of the
Complainant’s website, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name
could reasonably be claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.PA. v. Tang Hong, WIPO Case No.
D2014-1875; and LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure
Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-03-21 - 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. ...
2016-10-27 - Case Details
A TLD suffix may generally be disregarded in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of the Policy. 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. ...
2018-01-03 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
For the purpose of assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") suffix ".com" may generally be disregarded as being simply a necessary component of a domain name (LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Data Protection Sp. z o.o. / Mirek Nowakowski ROSTALCO Sp. z o.o.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-01-03 - Case Details
D2015-2175; 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. ...
2017-01-13 - Case Details
D2015-2175; 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. ...
2017-01-13 - Case Details
D2015-2175; see also 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. ...
2016-12-05 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix is generally disregarded in assessing the confusing similarity of a domain name to 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. ...
2017-02-06 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to dispel confusing similarity with 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. ...
2016-10-20 - Case Details