The Complainant has provided evidence that it owned the JARDIANCE trademark registrations long before
the date that the disputed domain name was registered, and that it is not affiliated with nor has it licensed or
otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark (see LEGO Juris A/S v.
DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO
Case No. ...
2023-03-10 - Case Details
See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8 and similar cases
LEGO Juris A/S v. Beats, WIPO Case No. D2019-0012; Accenture Global Services Limited v. Carolina
Rodrigues, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-04-17 - Case Details
The Complainant is not affiliated with, nor has it licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent
to use the Complainant’s trade marks (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com
Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-04-12 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations of the GENENTECH mark long
before the date that the disputed domain names were registered and that the Complainant is not affiliated
with nor has it licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark (see
LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host
master, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-08-08 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations of the VIVENDI mark long
before the date that the disputed domain name was registered and that the Complainant is not affiliated with
nor has it licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark (see LEGO
Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host
master, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-08-30 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations of the CARVANA mark long
before the dates that the disputed domain names were registered and that the Complainant is not affiliated
with nor has it licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark (see
LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host
master, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-07-06 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations of the MICHELIN mark long
before the date that the disputed domain name was registered and that the Complainant is not affiliated with
nor has it licensed or otherwise authorised the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark (see LEGO
Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host
master, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-10-09 - Case Details
In the absence of any license or
permission from the Complainant to use its trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate
use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.PA. 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. ...
2024-02-16 - 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
D2015-2175; see also 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. ...
2016-11-08 - 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. ...
2016-11-01 - 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 des noms de domaine litigieux, voir Lego Juris A/S c. Reiner Stotte,
Litige OMPI No. D2010-0494.
La Commission administrative observe encore que les noms de domaine litigieux reproduisent la marque CREDIT AGRICOLE du Requérant en y intégrant des erreurs d’orthographes, des lettres ayant été omises:
Il ne fait aucun doute pour la Commission administrative que ces erreurs sont volontaires et procèdent de la technique éprouvée dite “typosquatting” par laquelle un tiers mal intentionné spécule sur les fautes de frappes des internautes pour les détourner de la page Internet à laquelle ils pensaient accéder, voir Edmunds.com, Inc c. ...
2016-08-05 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix or a ccTLD 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. ...
2016-08-03 - Case Details
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. ...
2016-07-22 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the use of the Domain Name to divert Internet traffic to a scam or a phishing scheme is not a bona fide offering of goods or services.”); LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-07-22 - Case Details
Finally, the addition of “.info”, a gTLD suffix, is non-distinctive and is typically without significance when assessing the identity or confusing similarity of a domain name to a complainant’s prior trade mark rights. See, LEGO Juris A/S v Mariusz Zielezny,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0796.
In the light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2016-07-22 - Case Details
Jan-Iver Levsen, LEVSEN.N.O.V.A. e.K., Case No. D2015-0069 for “.limo” and LEGO Juris A/S v. Jack Hollingsworth,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0081 for “.london”). In fact, in the case at hand, Internet users will not only adjudge the new TLDs ”.bid” and “.accountant” its undisputed technical function. ...
2016-09-06 - Case Details
However, a gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark for the purposes of a 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. ...
2016-11-24 - 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