Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico,
WIPO Case No. D2021-1735 .
5 Referring to LEGO Juris A / S v Reiner Stotte, WIPO Case D2010-0494, Caixa D’Estalvis / Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2021-12-02 - Case Details
争议域名也包括通用顶级域名后缀“.com”。专家组认为该部分作为域名注册的技术要求，在认定第一要素下的混淆性相似时，无需考虑。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。
...
2020-07-24 - Case Details
In previous UDRP decisions, UDRP 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. ...
2020-10-12 - Case Details
In addition, it has been held in previous UDRP cases that knowledge of a corresponding mark at the time of the domain name’s registration suggests bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Caixa D’Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2020-11-25 - Case Details
参见WIPO Overview 3.0，第3.3节；Telstra Corporation Limited 诉 Nuclear Marshmallows，WIPO案件编号D2000-0003和LEGO Juris A/S 诉 lihailiang，WIPO 案件编号 DSO2011-0002。WIPO Overview 3.0的第3.3节进而要求专家组必须考察各种情况以认定被投诉人的行为是否具有恶意，并列举了几种可被视为恶意的情况，包括：(i) 投诉人商标的独特性或知名度，(ii) 被投诉人未作出答辩或提供任何实际或经得起考验的善意使用的证据，(iii) 被投诉人隐瞒身份，或使用虚假的联系方式（违反其注册协议），以及(iv) 不具由善意使用域名的可能性等。
...
2021-01-22 - Case Details
Domain Administrator,
Caso OMPI No. D2004-0743; ver también LEGO Juris A/S v. pcmaniabg, Paisiy Aleksandrov,
Caso OMPI No. D2010-1965; Etihad Airways c. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2020-12-18 - 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. ...
2021-03-10 - 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. ...
2021-03-10 - 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. ...
2021-03-10 - 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. ...
2021-03-10 - 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. ...
2021-03-10 - Case Details
鉴于此，专家组认定本案的行政程序语言应该是中文，但是专家组决定接受投诉人所提交的英文投诉书和投诉书修正本及相关材料，不要求投诉⼈提供中文翻译本。专家组认为这一决定并不会给当事⼈双方造成不公平且能促使行政程序高效及经济地进行。参见LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Zhong Huijie，WIPO 案件编号 D2011-1381。
6.2 实质性问题
根据政策第4条(a)项的规定，投诉书必须同时符合以下三个要素，才能胜诉。
...
2021-03-04 - Case Details
Prior 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; Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, L’Oréal v. 10 Selling,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-04-12 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have found that in the absence of any license or permission from a complainant to use well-known trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name incorporating such marks 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. ...
2013-02-07 - Case Details
It is an approach that has also been previously rejected by this Panelist (LEGO Juris A/S v. P N S Enterprises,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0170). It is an argument that rests on the whole public being aware of all the associations of the Complainant’s mark.
...
2013-03-07 - 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.
According to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 2.6:
“Panels have generally recognized that use of a domain name to post parking and landing pages or PPC links may be permissible in some circumstances, but would not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests arising from a “bona fide offering of goods or services” [see also paragraph 3.8 below] or from “legitimate noncommercial or fair use” of the domain name, especially where resulting in a connection to goods or services competitive with those of the rights holder. ...
2013-09-09 - Case Details
According to Stichting VVV Groep Nederland v. C. Henriquez,
WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0040, LEGO Juris A/S v. Nick Terlouw,
WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0023 and Altro Limited v. Handelsonderneming H.M.S B.V.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-01-27 - Case Details
其中，“pentair”部分与投诉人的PENTAIR商标完全相同。另外，许多之前的UDRP案例已表明顶级域名与判断争议域名和商标是否相似通常而言无关。(参见LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Zhang Jian，WIPO 案件编号 D2010-0710)。
基于上述事实，投诉人的投诉请求满足政策第4(a)条的第一个要素。
B. 权利或合法利益
依据之前的UDRP案例，如果投诉人可以提供表面证据证明被投诉人对争议域名不享有权利或合法利益，那么被投诉人有责任提出主张及证据以证明其对争议域名享有权利或合法利益。...
2017-01-24 - Case Details
关于通用顶级域“.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。
...
2017-01-17 - Case Details
D2012-1293 (): “previous UDRP decisions have found bad faith at the time of registration to exist where a domain name is so obviously connected with such 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; and Sanofi-aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-03-10 - Case Details