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. ...
2017-08-30 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have ruled that the gTLD suffix generally has 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. ...
2017-08-04 - 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. ...
2017-05-24 - Case Details
Niezależnie bowiem od wprowadzonych modyfikacji relewantna część spornej nazwy domen i znak ELECTRO-LUBER wymawiane są w ten sam sposób, zaś gdyż przyrostek „.com” nie wpływa na ocenę identyczności/podobieństwa znaku i nazwy domeny w ramach niniejszej przesłanki (zobacz LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Data Protection Sp. z o.o. / Mirek Nowakowski ROSTALCO Sp. z o.o., sprawa WIPO nr D2012-0607). ...
2018-05-28 - Case Details
D2012-0164; Schering Corporation v. Name Redacted,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0729; LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Domains Secured, LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1857). ...
2018-05-18 - Case Details
In previous decisions, UDRP 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. ...
2018-05-16 - Case Details
Previous panels have found that the registration and use of a disputed domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith. See, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091.
Finally, email servers have been configured on the disputed domain name, which suggests there may be a risk of the Respondent being engaged in a phishing scheme by which they could gain access to valuable information such as credit cards from the Complainant's clients or employees. ...
2018-09-07 - 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.
...
2017-10-12 - Case Details
Partant, il est difficilement concevable que le Défendeur a pu ignorer les droits du Requérant dans la marque CREDIT AGRICOLE et n’a pas eu cette dernière à l’esprit au moment de l’enregistrement du nom de domaine litigieux, voir Lego Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
Litige OMPI No. D2010-0494.
La Commission administrative observe encore:
- que le nom de domaine litigieux reproduit à l’identique la marque CREDIT AGRICOLE du Requérant en lui ajoutant le terme ”espace”, habituellement utilisé à titre de rubrique sur les sites de fournisseurs de services bancaires notamment;
- que le Défendeur a déclaré de fausses informations relatives à son identité ou ses coordonnées lors de l’enregistrement du nom de domaine litigieux comme en attestent les différents échanges entre le Centre et les parties et entre le Centre et le transporteur DHL, versés au débat.
...
2017-12-01 - Case Details
However, a gTLD suffix may generally be disregarded in the comparison of a domain name with 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. ...
2017-11-15 - Case Details
Where the NATIXIS trademarks are recognizable within the disputed domain names, 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 names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.
...
2018-04-20 - Case Details
A TLD suffix may generally be 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. ...
2018-02-23 - Case Details
Typically, in the absence of any license or permission from a complainant to use the 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. ...
2018-03-16 - Case Details
The Respondent has been the losing party in numerous prior dispute resolution proceedings involving other domain names incorporating famous trademarks, such as LEGO, BANK OF AMERICA, MICHELIN, and CALVIN KLEIN. The Respondent is a habitual cybersquatter engaged in a pattern and practice of registering and using in bad faith domain names corresponding to the well-known trade names and/or marks of third parties. ...
2018-05-08 - Case Details
En l’absence de licence ou d’autorisation de la part du Requérant, le Défendeur ne peut prétendre qu’il comptait utiliser le nom de domaine litigieux en relation avec une offre de bonne foi de biens ou de services (LEGO Juris A/S c. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, Litige OMPI n° D2010-0138).
...
2018-06-01 - Case Details
Carlo Magallon, Sambulging,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0363 and LEGO Juris A/S v. Richard Larkins Sets&Reps,
WIPO Case No.
D2012-1024).
The addition of “watchesusa” also creates confusion with the BREITLING trademark. ...
2018-05-30 - Case Details
In previous UDRP 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. ...
2018-05-30 - Case Details
D2017-2336; AB Electrolux v. Mostafa Faheem,
WIPO Case No. D2017-2233; LEGO Juris A/S v. John Davis,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0313 (noting the "Respondent cannot benefit from Oki Data since the Respondent has not accurately disclosed the lack of any relationship between it and the Complainant").
...
2018-10-01 - Case Details
Respondent reproduces Complainant’s trademark without any license or authorization by Complainant, which is strong evidence of the lack of legitimate interest. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Ibnu Firdaus,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1336. Respondent’s use or preparation to use of the Disputed Domain Name demonstrate no intent to use it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...
2018-12-20 - Case Details
Bad faith may be 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. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Sanofi-aventis v. Nevis Domains,, LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-12-12 - Case Details