其唯一其余部分为一个通用顶级域名".wang"，可译为 "网"。专家组认为该通用顶级域名在本案中亦不具有任何区别争议域名与投诉人商标的效果 (参见LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Chen Yong，WIPO案件编号D2009-1611及Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG 诉 zhanglei，WIPO案件编号D2014-0080）。...
2015-12-16 - 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. ...
2016-01-14 - 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. ...
2015-06-26 - Case Details
The Complainant relies on a number of cases including LEGO Juris A/S v. Transure Enterprise Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1347, for , , . ...
2011-04-08 - Case Details
Gerardo Saavedra
Sole Panelist
Dated: March 25, 2011
1 Similar situations in LEGO Juris A/S v. Charlie Carmichael,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1507 and in World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. ...
2011-04-07 - Case Details
For example, a case involving the domain name held that “[t]he addition of a number does not serve sufficiently to distinguish or differentiate the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trademark.” (LEGO Juris A/S v. huangderong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1325). Combining a trademark with abbreviations to form a domain name also does not avoid a likelihood of confusion. ...
2011-05-26 - Case Details
To the contrary, the Panel accepts that the addition of the words "hair products" to REVLON to form the Domain Name serves to increase the likelihood of confusion given that hair products are clearly relevant to the Complainant's business. See LEGO Juris A/S v. huangderong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1325.
The Panel accordingly finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark REVLON in which the Complainant has rights, and that element 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2010-09-22 - Case Details
BusinessService Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1836; LEGO Juris A/S v. Jan Cerny,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0707), decides that the language of the administrative proceedings is English.
5. ...
2010-08-12 - 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 aware of the
Complainant’s Trademark when registering and using the Disputed Domain Name given the well-known
nature of the Complainant’s Trademark and it was put into use well before the Respondent registered the
Disputed Domain Name.
...
2025-05-07 - 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.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. ...
2025-05-01 - Case Details
The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be
English for several reasons, including the fact that the Complainant is allegedly unable to communicate in
Chinese and translation of the Complaint would unfairly disadvantage and burden the Complainant and delay
the proceedings and adjudication of this matter; that the disputed domain name is comprised of Latin
characters; that the website previously reachable through the disputed domain name featured various
phrases in English including “Unlock exclusive savings” and “Free shipping on all orders over $50.00” and
that the Respondent has been involved in numerous prior UDRP proceedings, all of which have been held in
English, see for example LEGO Juris A/S v. 朱杰 (jie zhu), WIPO Case No. D2023-5391.
In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to
exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all
relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the
proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP
Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1).
...
2025-08-05 - Case Details
As noted by a previous panel in similar circumstances, the WhoIs details appear to be another way the
Respondent seeks to falsely affiliate itself with the Complainant (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Muhammed Melih
TAN, LegoToyx, WIPO Case No. D2024-4102). The Panel has taken into account that although the WhoIs
data indicates that the Respondent is called “AL DI” and comes from an organization called “ALDI” from
India, there is no indication that is the actual name of the Respondent or that such organization actually
exists. ...
2025-09-09 - Case Details
Noting the composition of the
disputed domain names, in the absence of any license or permission f rom 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.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. ...
2025-09-04 - Case Details
Moreover, based on the circumstances of the case and the use made of the Disputed Domain Name, 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. 2019-2601. Furthermore, the Respondent’s use of a
Complainant’s employee’s name and the Complainant’s name when registering the Disputed Domain Name
does not confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent.
...
2025-11-27 - 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). The Respondent must have been aware of the
Complainant and the Complainant’s Trademark when registering and using the Disputed Domain Name
given the well-known nature of the Complainant’s Trademark and it was put into use well before the
Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name. ...
2025-05-26 - 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
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
use of the disputed domain names 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. ...
2025-07-04 - 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 aware of the
Complainant and the Complainant’s Trademark when registering and using the Disputed Domain Names
given the well-known nature of the Complainant’s Trademark and the fact that it was put into use well before
the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names.
...
2025-12-04 - Case Details
Por ello, de conformidad
con los criterios de los paneles, que han reconocido que cuando la marca de la Promovente es reconocible
en el nombre de dominio en disputa, hay semejanza en grado de confusión, aunque se añadan otros
elementos. (Ver LEGO Juris A/S c. Pablo Alberto Camarena Carreola, Caso OMPI No. DMX2023-0001).
iii. La presencia de la palabra KAESER que identifica a las marcas de la Promovente se encuentra
claramente incluida dentro del nombre de dominio en disputa, lo que basta para concluir que existe la
similitud en grado de confusión que exige la LDRP.
...
2024-04-29 - Case Details
In the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use their trademarks, the
composition of the disputed domain name, and the fact that the disputed domain name has been used to
create email addresses used in an attempt to impersonate the Complainant, no actual or contemplated
bona fide 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.
...
2024-04-25 - Case Details
Noting the composition of the
disputed domain name, 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. ...
2024-03-26 - Case Details