The other additional element is the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.net” but 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. ...
2016-10-06 - Case Details
The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Brock Flanagan, BJF Web Design,
WIPO Case No. DAU2016-0027 (August 19, 2016). The Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
...
2016-11-22 - 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. ...
2017-02-23 - Case Details
The disputed domain name also contains the gTLD suffix ".com" but a gTLD suffix is generally disregarded in the comparison between a domain name with a trademark for the purposes of assessing confusing similarity. 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. ...
2017-04-18 - Case Details
The disputed domain name also contains the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com” but a gTLD suffix is generally disregarded in the comparison between a domain name with a trademark for the purposes of assessing confusing similarity. 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. ...
2017-04-10 - Case Details
Previous Panels have found that in the absence of any license or permission from the complainant to use such widely-known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name can reasonably be claimed. See, for example, LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-05-10 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to dispel confusing similarity 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. ...
2017-05-08 - Case Details
Previous panels have held that the registration of a domain name obviously connected with well-known trademarks by someone without any connection to these trademarks suggests opportunistic bad faith. See, among others, LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494.
The Respondent has used a privacy service to conceal the name and address of the beneficiary of the disputed domain name. ...
2017-05-08 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to dispel confusing similarity 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. ...
2017-04-19 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix is generally disregarded for the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under 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. ...
2017-05-16 - Case Details
In previous decisions, Panels found that in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use its trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could reasonably be claimed (Groupe Auchan v. Gan Yu,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0188; LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No.
...
2018-05-23 - Case Details
Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element (See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and LEGO Juris A/S v. DBA David Inc/ DomainsByProxy.com,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1290).
Therefore, the Panel holds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.
...
2018-02-12 - Case Details
Partant, il est difficilement concevable que le Défendeur, résident français, ait pu ignorer les droits du Requérant sur la marque SFR et n’ait pas eu cette dernière à l’esprit au moment de l’enregistrement du nom de domaine litigieux, voir Lego Juris A/S c. Reiner Stotte,
Litige OMPI No. D2010-0494.
La Commission administrative observe encore que le nom de domaine litigieux reproduit à l’identique la marque SFR du Requérant en lui ajoutant une suite de lettre “itms” qui, comme il a été évoqué précédemment, n’a pas de signification claire pour le Défendeur lui-même.
...
2018-03-12 - Case Details
The only additional element is the Top-Level Domain ("TLD") suffix ".sale" but a TLD suffix may generally be disregarded in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of assessing confusing similarity. 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. ...
2017-12-19 - Case Details
D2011-1023 ("The Panel also notes that, as found by other panels, where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known product or service, its very use by someone with no connection with the product suggests opportunistic bad faith..."); and LEGO Juris A/S v. XMGlobal Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1168 ("[...] the misappropriation of a well-known trademark as domain name constitutes per se bad faith registration in light of the Policy"). ...
2017-12-11 - Case Details
A gTLD 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. ...
2018-01-10 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have found that in the absence of any license or permission from the complainant to use such a widely-known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name can reasonably be claimed. See, for example, LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-07-19 - Case Details
Also previous UDRP panels have regularly ruled that bad faith was found where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091; Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, L’Oréal v. 10 Selling,
WIPO Case No. 2008-0226).
...
2017-07-18 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have found that in the absence of any license or permission from a complainant to use that complainant’s trademarks, no bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could reasonably be claimed. See, LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com, Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-11-13 - 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. ...
2017-10-03 - Case Details