Numerous panels have viewed website suspension by the registrar or webhost, absent any explanation or
attempted justification by the respondent, as added corroboration of bad faith. See LEGO Juris A/S v.
Ammar Briouel / Brahim Mahjoubi, WIPO Case No. D2019-0750 (involving website suspension following a
takedown request by Complainant); Hershey Entertainment & Resorts Company v. ...
2026-01-30 - Case Details
That aural resemblance is increased to the extent that the public may refer to the
Complainant as “Medtronics” as, for example, people often mistakenly refer to “Lego” as “Legos”, or
“Legoes”.
As this requirement under the Policy is essentially a standing requirement, therefore, the replacement of the
“ic” component of the Complainant’s trademark with “ex” does not preclude a finding of confusing similarity.
...
2025-02-19 - 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 Respondent is making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.
...
2010-12-02 - Case Details
As it has been decided by previous panels, the mere addition of the generic acronym “www” does not eliminate the confusing similarity between a complainant's marks and a domain name (see e.g. LEGO Juris A/S v. Bladimir Boyiko,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0437; The Nasday OMX Group, Inc. v. Eli Shoval,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-07-15 - Case Details
The Panel also observes that the Respondent has been the unsuccessful respondent in numerous other
UDRP proceedings that are easily located by a search of the Center’s public website. See, e.g., LEGO Juris
A/S v. Client Care, Web Commerce Communications Limited, WIPO Case No. D2023-0915, and Benetton
Group S.R.L. v. ...
2023-10-12 - Case Details
Where the
trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms – whether
descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise – would not prevent a f inding of confusing
similarity under the first element (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8; and LEGO Juris A/S v. DBA David Inc/
DomainsByProxy.com, WIPO Case No. D2011-1290).
Furthermore, it is generally maintained that the addition of a gTLD is a standard registration requirement.
...
2023-11-24 - Case Details
Super
Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot et al., WIPO Case No. D2021-2193; LEGO Juris A/S v. Domain
Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, et al., WIPO Case No. D2020-3305.
...
2023-12-21 - Case Details
Furthermore, Panels have previously held that rights or legitimate interests cannot be created where the user
of the domain name would not choose such names unless he was seeking to create an impression of
association with the complainant (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain
Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. ...
2025-01-13 - Case Details
In the absence of any license or
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
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. ...
2024-08-19 - Case Details
The Complainant points to previous UDRP decisions in which panels found that in the absence of any
license or permission from the complainant to use such widely-known trademarks, no actual or contemplated
bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could reasonably be claimed (LEGO Juris A/S v.
DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO
Case No. ...
2024-05-27 - Case Details
The Panel also finds applicable to this case the position on the use of English as the fairest neutral
language, stated by previous UDRP panels under similar scenarios (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Asiagroup,
WIPO Case No. D2022-2829; IPSOS v. Beats, WIPO Case No. D2022-1055). The Panel would have
considered a Response in Ukrainian, but no response was submitted.
...
2024-10-10 - Case Details
Complete Administrative au stabilit anterior că o constatare a relei-credințe poate fi stabilită atunci când
marca comercială a unui reclamant este demonstrată a fi bine cunoscută sau în largă utilizare la momentul
înregistrării numelui de domeniu in litigiu (vezi LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour, WIPO Case No.
D2013-0091). Paratul trebuie să fi fost pe deplin conștient de Reclamant și de Marca Comercială a
Reclamantului atunci când a înregistrat Numele de Domeniu in Litigiu având în vedere natura bine
cunoscută a MărciiReclamantului, evidențiată de diversele înregistrări de mărci comerciale a Mărcii
Reclamantului la nivel global, care au fost puse în utilizare cu mult înainte ca Pârâtul să înregistreze Numele
de Domeniu în Litigiu, și faptul că Website-ul Respondentului s-a identificat ca “AdBlue® Shop” și a oferit
spre vânzare produse AdBlue® și echipamentele relevante.
...
2024-11-27 - Case Details
The Panel
finds that the Respondent does not so much use the disputed domain name to notify Internet users of a
potential claim against the Complainant or misconduct by the Complainant, but instead primarily to sell
2In view of the fact that the Regulations are based on the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), it is well
established that cases decided under both the Regulations and the UDRP, and therefore WIPO Overview 3.0, may be relevant to the
determination of this proceeding (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Stichting RIBW ZWWF, WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0042 and Arie Hendrik
den Draak v. RAPIDE Internet, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-12-11 - Case Details
Noting the
composition of the disputed domain names, 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. ...
2024-10-07 - 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. ...
2024-11-12 - Case Details
Noting the composition of the disputed domain name being
nearly identical to the Complainant’s trademark, in the circumstances of this case, no actual or contemplated
bona fide or legitimate 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. ...
2024-11-06 - Case Details
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 (see LEGO Juris A/S
v. store24hour, WIPO Case No. D2013-0091). Given the strong reputation and distinctiveness of the
Complainants’ trademarks, registration in bad faith can be inferred.
...
2023-01-05 - 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 names (see, e.g.,
LEGO Juris A/S v. Andrei Novakovich, WIPO Case No. D2016-1513).
Furthermore, the Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names resolving to
inactive websites at the time of the decision (see, e.g., Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...
2022-08-25 - Case Details
Such intentional targeting in
bad faith is only further underscored by WhoIs evidence proffered by Complainant to show that Respondent
has also targeted third party trademarks including CROCS, LEGO, NIKE, and TWITTER. Under the
circumstances, any good faith or otherwise legitimate uses are rather implausible.
...
2022-08-19 - Case Details
UDRP panels have
consistently found bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) in cases involving similar unauthorized
domain name use (LEGO Juris A/S v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org and Sun Chong,
WIPO Case No. D2019-2263).
...
2022-11-04 - Case Details