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 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 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 Respondent has been found by previous panels decisions under the Policy to have engaged in a pattern
of registering domain names to prevent the owners of marks from registering them. See LEGO Juris A/S v.
HEMANG INFRASRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED / PrivacyProtect.org, Domain Admin, WIPO Case No.
...
2023-02-10 - Case Details
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
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
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
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
Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion
Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. D2019-3045; LEGO Juris A/S v. Registration Private, Domains By
Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-06-19 - 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
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
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