This view has been upheld in several UDRP decisions. See for instance LEGO Juris A/S v. Leo Wang,
WIPO Case No. D2013-1084, concerning the domain name , where it was found that a domain name that gives a false impression of being that of the complainant’s does not vest any rights or legitimate interests in the respondent.
...
2013-09-30 - 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
Shu Lin, Shu Lin Enterprises Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1882; LEGO Juris A/S v. Shu Lin/Transure Enterprise Ltd/ Above.com Domain Privacy,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1648; and Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson v. ...
2011-04-08 - Case Details
Bad faith has already been found where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection with the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Sanofi-aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-05-07 - Case Details
- The Respondent has a long domain name registration history aimed at set up infringing websites publishing mainly pay-per-click advertisements (LEGO Juris A/S v. Nathan Joseph,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1382; Surfboard Holding B.V. v. Mainstream Advertising Inc., Nathan Joseph,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-05-04 - 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
Bad faith has already been found where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection with the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Siotie,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Sanofi-aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-04-20 - Case Details
Back To Bed, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0106 and LEGO Juris A/S v. J.h.Ryu,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1156).
Finally, there is no evidence that the Respondent is making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
...
2013-02-07 - Case Details
Bad faith has already been established 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. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Sanofi-aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-12-27 - Case Details
Des nombreuses décisions des commissions administratives ont par le passé considéré que la connaissance par le défendeur des droits de propriété intellectuelle du requérant au moment de l’enregistrement du nom de domaine, ou tout du moins du fait que le défendeur aurait pu avoir connaissance de ces droits, constitue un indice de la mauvaise foi au moment de l’enregistrement (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
Litige OMPI No. D2010-0494).
La Commission administrative estime par conséquent que les noms de domaine litigieux ont été enregistrés de mauvaise foi.
...
2012-12-13 - Case Details
The words “spiced rum” is term that is descriptive of the Complainant’s product, which is spiced rum. As noted in LEGO Juris A/S v. Private, Registration/Dohe Dot,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0753, the addition of a term that is generic or descriptive of the Complainant’s products is likely to produce confusion since it creates an association with the Complainant. ...
2012-10-31 - Case Details
See also paragraph 4.16 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0), available at www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview2.0/index.html.
2 See paragraph 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 2.0, Id.
3 Similar situations in LEGO Juris A/S v. Charlie Carmichael,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1507 and in OLX Inc. and OLX S.A. v. Anis Ahmad,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-07-31 - Case Details
In 1999, Complainant carried advertisements from more than 3,500 companies, including American Express, Apple, Colgate-Palmolive, Disney, The Gap, Honda, IBM, Lego, Microsoft, Procter & Gamble, Sony, and others.
4.5 In 1999, Complainant's revenues were in excess of US$588 million.
4.6 The price one can command for advertising placed on the World Wide Web depends on "hits" and/or "page views." ...
2000-08-11 - 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
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2025-06-03 - 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. ...
2025-06-12 - 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 Panel finds that the Respondent was likely
aware of the Complainant and the Complainant’s Trademark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name,
given the well-known and distinctive nature of the Complainant’s brand, evidenced by the various trademark
registrations for the Complainant’s Trademark that was put into use before the Respondent registered the
Disputed Domain Name. ...
2025-09-29 - Case Details