Moreover,
based on the non-use of the Disputed Domain Name which resolves to an inactive Registrar’s parked page,
the Panel finds that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor making a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name under the circumstances of the case.
See Lego Juris A/S v. Nofel Izz, JID, WIPO Case No. D2019-2601.
Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy has been established.
...
2025-11-05 - Case Details
John Deecon, TrafficDomains INC.,
WIPO Case No. D2025-0282; LEGO Holding A/S v. John Deecon, TrafficDomains INC , WIPO Case No.
D2025-0497; Carrefour SA v. John Deecon, TrafficDomains INC , WIPO Case No. ...
2025-10-07 - Case Details
D2019-0733; Inter IKEA
Systems BV (IISVB) v. Hosein Bagheri WIPO Case No. D2016-0432; LEGO Juris A/S v. Simonovi Eood
WIPO Case No. D2012-0863). Against this background there are neither indications for a bona fide offering
nor for a noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name (see Philip Morris Products S.A. v.
...
2024-06-06 - Case Details
Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s failure to respond to the
Complainant’s C&D Letter and its continued registration of the Disputed Domain Name after receiving said
letter should be taken into consideration in a finding of bad faith (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Colin Heggie, WIPO
Case No. D2011-1304).
At the time of this decision, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an inactive website. ...
2024-08-27 - Case Details
Panels have previously held that a finding of bad faith can be established
where a complainant’s trademark is shown to be well-known or in wide use at the time of registration of the
disputed domain name (see LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour, WIPO Case No. D2013-0091). It is likely that
the Respondent has been fully aware of the Complainant’s Trademark when it registered the Disputed
Domain Name, given the well-known nature of the Complainant’s REGINA MARIA brand, evidenced by the
various trademark registrations for the Complainant’s Trademark that was put into use well before the
Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name.
...
2025-02-21 - Case Details
Panels have previously held that a finding of bad faith can be established where a complainant’s trademark
is shown to be well-known or in wide use at the time of registration of the disputed domain name (see LEGO
Juris A/S v. store24hour, WIPO Case No. D2013-0091). The Respondent must have been fully aware of the
Complainant and the Complainant’s Trademark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name, given the
well-known nature of the Complainant’s brand, evidenced by the various trademark registrations for the
Complainant’s Trademark across the globe that was put into use well before the Respondent registered the
Disputed Domain Name, as well as the misappropriation of an address on the Respondent’s Website that is
nearly identical to the Complainant’s office address. ...
2025-01-10 - Case Details
Panels have previously held that a finding of
bad faith can be established where a complainant’s trademark is shown to be well-known or in wide use at
the time of registration of the disputed domain name (see LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour, WIPO Case No.
D2013-0091). It is likely that the Respondent has been fully aware of the Complainant and the
Complainant’s Trademark when they registered the Disputed Domain Name, given the well-known nature of
the Complainant’s brand, evidenced by the various trademark registrations for the Complainant’s Trademark
across the globe that was put into use well before the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name.
...
2025-01-06 - Case Details
In the absence of any license or
permission from the Complainant to use its trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona f ide or legitimate
use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.P.A. 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. ...
2025-05-16 - Case Details
Dans de nombreuses décisions UDRP des commissions administratives de l’OMPI ont par le passé considéré que la connaissance par le défendeur des droits de propriété intellectuelle du requérant au moment de l’enregistrement du nom de domaine litigieux, ou tout du moins du fait que le défendeur aurait pu avoir connaissance de ces droits, constitue un indice de la mauvaise foi au moment de l’enregistrement (cf. LEGO Juris A/S contre Reiner Stotte,
Litige OMPI No. D2010-0494)
La Commission administrative, en suivant cette jurisprudence UDRP, estime par conséquent que le nom de domaine litigieux a été enregistré de mauvaise foi.
...
2012-01-03 - Case Details
Where a domain name is so obviously connected with a trademark, its very use 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; LANCOME PARFUMS ET BEAUTE & CIE, L’OREAL v. 10 Selling,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-07-16 - Case Details
D2021-0774; Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Milen Radumilo,
WIPO Case No. DCO2020-0090; LEGO Juris A/S v. ken Teo,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2380; Sanofi v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Todd Peter,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-07-12 - Case Details
En este sentido véanse anteriores resoluciones, tales como el caso LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2021-06-29 - Case Details
En este sentido véanse anteriores resoluciones, tales como el caso LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2020-05-04 - Case Details
A number of these include or are based on famous trademarks including O2, Sky, Lego, and VISA.
5. Discussion and Findings
No response has been filed. The Complaint and Written Notice have been sent, however, to the Respondent at the electronic and physical coordinates confirmed as correct by the Registrar in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules. ...
2021-02-26 - Case Details
These allegations make out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which Respondent has not rebutted. See, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-10-11 - Case Details
D2021-0774; Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Milen Radumilo,
WIPO Case No. DCO2020-0090; LEGO Juris A/S v. ken Teo,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2380; Sanofi v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Todd Peter,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-10-18 - Case Details
Prior UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety (e.g., Carrefour SA v. Matias Barro Mares,
WIPO Case No. D2020-3088; LEGO Juris A/S v. ken Teo,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2380; Sanofi v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Todd Peter,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-05-03 - Case Details
Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Milen Radumilo,
WIPO Case No. DCO2020-0090; LEGO Juris A/S v. ken Teo,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2380; Sanofi v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Todd Peter,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-05-19 - Case Details
Similarly, previous panels have found that “Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to establish “website coming soon” pages is not a bona fide offering of goods or services” (See LEGO Juris A/S v. Nofel Izz, JID,
WIPO Case No. D2019-2601).
The Panel agrees and considers that the disputed domain name is not used in connection to a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.
...
2021-06-14 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns an International trademark registration designating multiple jurisdictions long before the disputed domain names were registered and that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM mark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-02-14 - Case Details