Gaurav Khanna, Carnity,
WIPO Case No. D2014-1618; LEGO Juris A/S v. Andrew Orr,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1311; Carrefour v. Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc. / Andres Saavedra,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-02-12 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns various trademark registrations in China and the USA long before 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. ...
2018-11-06 - Case Details
争议域名也包括通用顶级域名后缀“.com”。专家组认为该部分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。
...
2019-11-14 - Case Details
Par principe, lorsque la marque objet du litige est identifiable au sein du nom de domaine litigieux, l’adjonction d’autres termes (qu’ils soient descriptifs, géographique, sans signification ou autre) n’est pas suffisante pour écarter le risque de confusion (voir LEGO Juris A/S c. DBA David Inc/ DomainsByProxy.com,
Litige OMPI No. D2011-1290).
Plus encore, l’ajout du terme “cmb” qui renvoie à la marque CREDIT MUTUEL DE BRETAGNE dont est titulaire le Requérant, qui l’exploite notamment au travers du nom de domaine , est de nature à renforcer le risque de confusion entre la marque du Requérant et le nom de domaine litigieux, en laissant penser aux clients du Requérant qu’ils sont bien sur le site Internet du Requérant.
...
2018-03-27 - 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 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. ...
2018-03-12 - Case Details
Groupe Auchan v. Gan Yu,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0188; LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-08-27 - 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. ...
2019-01-09 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns various trademark registrations in US and China long before 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 trademark. (See LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-01-09 - Case Details
D2015-2175 1 ; 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. ...
2019-03-13 - Case Details
Groupe Auchan v. Gan Yu,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0188; LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-01-29 - Case Details
Above.com Domain Privacy / Belcanto Investment Group Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0177; LEGO Juris A/S v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Belcanto Investment Group Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0626; Banco Bradesco S/A v. ...
2018-12-26 - 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. ...
2019-07-12 - Case Details
The Respondent’s contention that no commercial gain flowed from its use of the Disputed Domain Name is implausible and unpersuasive, as the Respondent intended that it be the only beneficiary of such traffic (see: LEGO Juris A/S v. Project Xenos, Ty Weir,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1281 (“commercial gain need not accrue to Respondent – only that Respondent had the intention, for commercial gain”); Grupo Costamex, SA de C.V. v. ...
2019-08-23 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix is generally disregarded for the purposes of assessing confusing similarity 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. ...
2019-06-12 - Case Details
The “dr. martens” element in the Disputed Domain Name is immediately recognizable as the Complainants’ trademark and the addition numbers of “168” is not sufficient to avoid confusion (LEGO Juris A/S v. nichetrend products,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1955).
A domain name which consists of a trademark and a generic, descriptive term would be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP. ...
2013-02-22 - Case Details
Incorporation of the BELSTAFF mark in the Domain Name in the absence of any rights or legitimate interests and reasonable justification is sufficient evidence of bad faith by the Respondent. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; and Caixa D’Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2012-07-13 - Case Details
Bad faith can be found when the respondent was aware of the complainant’s trademark at the time of registering the domain name. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; and Caixa D’Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2012-07-09 - Case Details
Incorporation of the SWAROVSKI mark in the Domain Name without any reasonable justification is sufficient evidence of bad faith by the Respondent. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; and Caixa D’Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2012-07-05 - Case Details
Incorporation of the SWAROVSKI marks in the Domain Name without any reasonable justification is sufficient evidence under the circumstances of bad faith by the Respondent. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494 and Caixa D’Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2012-07-05 - Case Details
Incorporation of the SWAROVSKI mark in the Domain Name without any reasonable justification is sufficient evidence of bad faith by the Respondent. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; and Caixa D’Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2012-07-03 - Case Details