“In the absence of any license or permission from the complainant to use its trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the Domain Names 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. ...
2018-05-29 - Case Details
鉴于此，专家组决定接受投诉人所提交的英文版投诉书及相关材料，不要求投诉人提供中文翻译文本，但是专家组决定使用中文作出本案裁决。专家组认为这一决定并不会给当事人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 分析与认定
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。
...
2018-05-18 - Case Details
Such activities do not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services capable of conferring a right or legitimate interest (see similarly Robert Bosch GmbH v Asia Ventures, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0946 and LEGO Juris A/S v. J.h.Ryu,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1156).
The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the presence of a disclaimer at the bottom of the home page of the Respondents’ website is not sufficient to avoid the confusion of Internet users, who are unlikely to notice it due to its small size and marginal positioning. ...
2016-01-11 - Case Details
其唯一其余部分为一个通用顶级域名".xin"。专家组认为该通用顶级域名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）。...
2015-12-23 - Case Details
诉 Wei-Chun Hsia，WIPO 案件编号 D2008-0923）。另外，许多之前的UDRP裁决亦表明通用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)。
被投诉人并未反对投诉人的上述主张。
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。
...
2015-10-26 - Case Details
参见WIPO Overview 2.0，第3.2段；Telstra Corporation Limited 诉 Nuclear Marshmallows，同上和LEGO Juris A/S 诉 lihailiang，WIPO案件编号DSO2011-0002。WIPO Overview 2.0，第3.2段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，包括投诉人拥有驰名商标、被投诉人未作出答辩、被投诉人隐瞒身份及没有善意使用域名的可能性等。...
2016-02-05 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark (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. ...
2016-05-04 - Case Details
It is well established that 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. ...
2017-11-27 - Case Details
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns numerous trademark registrations in multiple jurisdictions before the disputed domain names were registered and that it has not 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. ...
2018-09-26 - Case Details
However, a gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark for the purposes of a comparison 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. ...
2018-11-21 - 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).
Particularly, the disputed domain name redirects Internet users to a website featuring
trademark and logo similar to the Complainant’s with an intention to make Internet users believe that they
actually access the website authorized by or affiliated with the Complainant. ...
2025-05-05 - Case Details
Le nom de domaine litigieux reprend intégralement les marques du Requérant, ce qui peut être suffisant pour établir que le nom de domaine litigieux est identique ou similaire au point de prêter à confusion avec les marques enregistrées du Requérant, l’adjonction d’autres termes n’éliminant pas le risque de confusion (LEGO Juris A/S v. Richard Larkins Sets&Reps,
Litige OMPI No. D2012-1024).
Ceci s’avère particulièrement vrai lorsque, comme dans le cas présent, la marque antérieure est une marque notoire: la marque VEEPEE est immédiatement identifiable dans le nom de domaine litigieux et amène le public à croire que le nom de domaine litigieux est lié d’une quelconque manière à la marque du Requérant (Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. ...
2021-06-28 - 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
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，或使用的虚假联系方式（违反其注册协议），以及(iv) 不具诚实使用或善意使用域名的可能性等。
...
2018-11-30 - Case Details
鉴于此，专家组决定接受投诉人所提交的英文版投诉书及相关材料，不要求投诉人提供中文翻译文本，但是专家组决定使用中文作出本案裁决。专家组认为这一决定并不会给当事人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。
...
2019-02-08 - Case Details
Bad faith may be found where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that said use of the domain name by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Sanofi-Aventis v. Nevis Domains, LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-12-26 - 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
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