The words “on sales” are descriptive terms that suggest that a product is either available for sale, or available for sale at a discount. As noted in LEGO Juris A/S v Private, Registration/Dohe Dot,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0602, the addition of a term that is generic or descriptive of the Complainant’s products is likely to produce more confusion since it creates an obvious association with the Complainant. ...
2012-09-07 - Case Details
La commission fait référence notamment à la décision suivante ; Lego Juris A/S contre Mickael Demimuid,
Litige OMPI No. DFR2009-0038.
Au vu de ce qui précède, la commission considère que le Requérant est titulaire de droits sur la marque SFR et que le nom de domaine litigieux est similaire au point de prêter à confusion avec la marque du Requérant.
...
2011-04-13 - 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
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
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
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
D2003-0859 (“[i]t is well-settled that the use of another’s trademark to sell competitive goods and services is an act of trademark infringement, and cannot under any circumstances be considered to be a bona fide offering of goods and services”); Lego Juris A/S v. Privacy Protect.org/SMVS Consultancy Private Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1094.
The Domain incorporates the Complainant’s Marks and resolves to a website publishing sponsored links to third party websites offering competing or strongly related products to those marketed by the Complainant, including without limitation Autodesk’s 3ds Max® software. ...The “use of [a] Domain Name . . . simply to provide links to web sites (a practice typically engaged in to collect referral fees) cannot be considered . . . a noncommercial use.” See Lego Juris A/S, supra. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name at all times has been commercial given the third party sponsored links that comprise the Respondent’s Website and the singular commercial purpose of the third party websites to which those sponsored links resolve.
...
2012-02-20 - Case Details
DBR2013-0010; Globex Utilidades S/A (Globex) e Nova Pontocom Comércio Eletrônico S/A (Nova Pontocom) v. André Ribeiro,
Caso OMPI No. DBR2012-0012; Lego System A/S v. Omar Quadros Motta,
Caso OMPI No. DBR2014-0001; e Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras v. ...
2017-07-18 - 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, ).
...
2017-07-12 - Case Details
A TLD suffix is generally disregarded in assessing the confusing similarity of a domain name to a trademark because it is a technical requirement of registration. 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. ...
2017-09-20 - Case Details
The disputed domain name also contains the gTLD suffix ".com" but a gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark and typically disregarded. 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. ...
2017-06-28 - Case Details
A TLD suffix is a technical requirement of registration and 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. ...
2017-06-23 - 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. ...
2017-08-29 - Case Details
However, a gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark for the purposes of comparison 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. ...
2017-08-24 - Case Details
For the purpose of assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, the suffix “.com” may be disregarded as being simply a necessary component of a generic Top-Level Domain (LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Data Protection Sp. z o.o. / Mirek Nowakowski ROSTALCO Sp. z o.o.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-09-01 - Case Details