Prior UDRP panels have held that bad faith can 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 (LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour; WIPO Case
No. D2013-0091,). Given the reputation of the L’ORÉAL trademark, registration in bad faith can be inferred.
...
2022-04-21 - Case Details
The Complainant provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations of the MODERNA Marks long
before the date that the disputed domain names were registered, and that it is not affiliated with nor has it
licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademarks (see LEGO Juris A/S
v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO
Case No. ...
2022-07-08 - Case Details
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
The Complainant provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations of the VALVOLINE Marks long
before the date that the disputed domain names were registered, and that it is not affiliated with nor has it
licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademarks (see LEGO Juris A/S
v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO
Case No. ...
2022-08-08 - Case Details
If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element (see, e.g. LEGO Juris A/S v. Anton Obrezkov,
WIPO Case No. DUA2020-0001.
Noting the facts and arguments set out above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case. ...
2021-11-30 - Case Details
The Complainant is
not affiliated with nor has it licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trade
mark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure
Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. ...
2022-08-11 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have held that actual knowledge of a complainant’s trademarks and activities at the time of the registration of the disputed domain names may be considered an inference of bad faith. See, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494, Sodexo v. Shahzan - PrivacyProtect.org,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-08-13 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel notes the complainant is required to make out a prima facie case before the burden of production of evidence shifts to the respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to meet the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the .UA Policy. (See LEGO Juris A/S v. Anton Obrezkov,
WIPO Case No. DUA2020-0001).
The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent well after the Complainant had registered the AEG trademarks and had established extensive goodwill from its use. ...
2020-07-21 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have held that actual knowledge of a complainant’s trademarks and activities at the time of the registration of the disputed domain names may be considered an inference of bad faith. See, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494, Sodexo v. Shahzan - PrivacyProtect.org,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-08-06 - Case Details
iii) The Respondent’s failure to reply to the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant is further evidence of bad faith, given all the circumstances of the case. See LEGO Juris A/S v Thai Dang,
WIPO Case No. D2018-1929.
Therefore, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied in favor of the Complainant.
7. ...
2020-12-09 - Case Details
It is well-established that 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 disputed 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. ...
2021-07-07 - Case Details
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. ...
2021-07-01 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels considering this issue came to the same conclusion. Please see LEGO Juris A/S v. lin zhang,
WIPO Case No. D2020-0675. Therefore, the Panel disregards the TLD for the purposes of this comparison.
...
2021-09-06 - 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. ...
2021-08-03 - 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. ...
2021-08-03 - Case Details
Such awareness of the Complainant’s trademark suggests bad faith (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Domains by Proxy, Inc., DomainsByProxy.com / DBA David Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1839; Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. ...
2021-01-27 - Case Details
In the Panel’s view, such conduct cannot be regarded as giving rise to rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Andrei Novakovich,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1513).
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name resolving to an inactive website at the time of the decision (see, e.g., Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...
2021-03-05 - Case Details
Such awareness of the Complainant’s trademark suggests bad faith (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Domains by Proxy, Inc., DomainsByProxy.com / DBA David Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1839; Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. ...
2021-02-12 - Case Details
Such awareness of the Complainant’s trademark suggests bad faith (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Domains by Proxy, Inc., DomainsByProxy.com / DBA David Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1839; Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. ...
2021-02-12 - Case Details
Robert Stewart / Hush IP LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2018-1680; Lego Juris A/S v. Robert Stewart, Hush IP LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1314.
In view of the conclusion that Respondent is a serial cybersquatter, Respondent’s typosquatting on Complainant’s EYEFINITY trademark, and Respondent’s attempts to misdirect Internet traffic to advertisements for services in direct competition with Complainant by trading off the goodwill of Complainant’s EYEFINITY trademark, the Panel concludes that Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2021-12-17 - 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. ...
2021-12-14 - Case Details