Panels have held that such facts establish a prima facie case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-07-25 - Case Details
Bad faith has been 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. Reiner Stotte, WIPO Case. No. D2010-0494, and Sanofi-Aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-10-17 - Case Details
The website at “www.legounleashed.com” does include third-party advertising banners and frames, as well as Mr. Archer’s drawings, videos, and reviews of LEGO games and products.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered GOT MILK? ...
2012-01-04 - Case Details
D2010-0751, administrado por el Centro; y en el Caso LEGO Juris A/S v. Porchester Partners Inc., Caso No. D00008849, administrado por Nominet). En ambos casos, la Demandada fue obligada a transferir los nombres de dominio objeto de disputa.
...
2012-01-03 - Case Details
PrivacyProtect.org, Domain Admin / Bob Pham,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0991; LEGO A/S v. Domain Admin / Bob Pham,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0761; Clarins v. Bob Pham / Domain Admin Privacy Protection Services Inc d/b/a Privacyprotect.org,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-11-24 - 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
Previous UDRP panels have held that the respondent's knowledge of a corresponding mark at the time of the domain name's registration suggests bad faith. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494.
The Respondent's use of the disputed domain name in such a way constitutes free-riding on the Complainant's goodwill by diverting and misleading consumers looking for a website of or associated with the Complainant. ...
2015-07-21 - Case Details
So, it is clear that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant's VIAGRA mark. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Ranan Lachman,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0915. The first element of the Policy, therefore, has been met.
...
2014-12-18 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent (“Oneandone Private Registration”) has been involved in numerous past cases of cybersquatting and notes the following cases:
Lego Juris A/S v. Floyd Goddard/Oneandone, Private Registration,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0544 (June 9, 2010); Google, Inc. v. ...
2011-02-02 - Case Details
Payam Avarane Khorshid Co. and Nextone Media Limited,
WIPO Case No. DIR2010-0001, and LEGO Juris A/S v. n/a, Domain For Sale,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0158).
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant is required to make a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed Domain Name on part of the Respondent. ...
2011-01-24 - Case Details
The addition of descriptive or generic terms to a trademark will generally not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark and, in appropriate circumstances, may actually increase the likelihood of confusion. LEGO Juris A/S v. Private Registration / Dophe Dot.,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0753. Here, the addition of the generic term “nail polish” to Complainant’s REVLON mark functions to increase the likelihood of confusion because “nail polish” describes one of the products that Complainant is most famous for. ...
2010-12-29 - Case Details
The addition of descriptive or generic terms to a trademark will generally not distinguish the contested domain name from the mark and, in appropriate circumstances, may actually increase the likelihood of confusion. LEGO Juris A/S v. Private Registration/Dophe Dot.,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0753. Here, the Panel finds that the addition of the generic term "coupons" to the distinctive and well-known ALMAY trademark does not avoid likelihood of confusion and arguably adds to it.
...
2011-01-11 - Case Details
Rampe Purda / Privacy--Protect.org,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0870; and
- LEGO Juris A/S v. Rampe Purda,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0840;
- Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. and Hewlett-Packard Company v. ...
2010-11-02 - Case Details
There is plenty as authority under the Policy to conclude that confusing similarity is warranted where the domain name embodies the complainant’s mark in its entirety despite the addition of descriptive terms, and even more so where as here, the Complainant’s mark is widely known. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Mohamed Ouattara / Integral Assets Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0564 and V&S Vin&Sprit AB v. ...
2010-10-29 - Case Details
Gerardo Saavedra
Sole Panelist
Date: January 23, 2013
1 Similar situations in LEGO Juris A/S v. Charlie Carmichael,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1507 and in World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. ...
2013-02-01 - Case Details
D2007-1141; Robert Bosch GmbH v Asia Ventures, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0946; and LEGO Juris A/S v J.h.Ryu,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1156).
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2013-05-29 - Case Details
In fact, the Second Respondent's proposal to sell the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant for a price that would restore the investment of the Respondents, which exceeds the out-of-pocket expenses associated with the transfer constitutes a classic case of cybersquatting, and is one of the examples provided by the Policy of such circumstances indicating registration and use in bad faith (see LEGO Juris A/S v. n/a, Domain For Sale,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0158, AIB-Vincotte Belgium ASBL, AIB-Vincotte USA Inc. ...
2010-08-09 - Case Details
The Respondent did not exercise its right to respond in these proceedings, and, thus, has failed to rebut the prima facie case made by the Complainants (or advance any other argument supporting rights or legitimate interests) (see, among others, LEGO Juris A/S v. Chung Hong Phil,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1288; Universal City Studios, Inc. v. David Burns and Adam-12 Dot Com,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-08-09 - Case Details
It is well-established that in cases where the distinctive and prominent element of a domain name is the Complainant's trade mark or service mark, and the only addition is a generic term or numeral that adds no distinctive element, such an addition does not negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark: see for example LEGO Juris A/S v. huangderong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1325 and National Football League v. Alan D. Bachand, Nathalie M. ...
2010-08-05 - Case Details
Numerous UDRP decisions have held that a domain name which wholly incorporates a complainant's registered trademark is sufficient to establish that the domain name and the registered trademark are identical or confusingly similar. LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-04-20 - Case Details