参见Six Continents Hotels, Inc v Dkal，WIPO 案件编号 D2003-0244。此外，通用顶级域名后缀一般也不具有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）。...
2015-09-11 - Case Details
The addition of the word “hub” suggests that the related website is a central location somehow related to the Complainant. 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 is likely to produce confusion since it creates an association with the Complainant. ...
2013-06-03 - 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. ...
2015-01-15 - 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. ...
2015-09-21 - 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. ...
2015-06-16 - Case Details
本案争议域名，完全包含投诉人的ASHLEY MADISON商标字样，其余部分".site"是一个通用顶级域名，在本案中不具有任何区别争议域名与投诉人商标的效果(LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Chen Yong，WIPO 案件编号 D2009-1611)。此外，域名并无大小写的区别，且移除"ashley"与"madison"间之空格，系属于技术性规定，亦是域名注册的惯例。...
2015-10-26 - Case Details
D2010-0936 ("[T]he addition of the descriptive word "beauty" to the Complainant's REVLON trade mark, by referencing the goods for which the mark is known, increases the likelihood of confusion."); LEGO Juris A/S v. Private, Registration/Dohe Dot,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0753 (adding terms that are generic or descriptive of Complainant's products is likely to produce more confusion since it creates an obvious association with Complainant); and Revlon Consumer Products Corporation v. ...
2011-01-13 - Case Details
David Da Silva / Contactprivacy.com,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1168; LEGO Juris A/S v. Private, Registration / Dohe Dot,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0753; and Nokia Corporation v. ...
2011-04-27 - 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 Chen Yong，同上。WIPO Overview 2.0 进而要求专家组必须考察各种情况以认定被投诉人行为是否具有恶意，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；隐瞒身份；及没有善意使用域名的可能性”。...见Jupiters Limited 诉 Aaron Hall, WIPO案件编号D2000-0574和LEGO Juris A/S 诉Chen Yong，WIPO案件编号D2009-1611。
另外，如上文（5.1）说述，本案事实显示投诉书提交时，即2012年7月5日，争议域名的持有者是第一被投诉人——Cunqiulu，域名注册机构为eName Technology Co., Ltd. ...
2012-11-15 - 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).
The Panel also finds that the nature of the services provided on the website at the disputed domain name
, in particular, downloading videos etc., cannot constitute a bona f ide of fering of goods or
services or legitimate noncommercial fair use (see, e.g., Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. ...
2025-04-28 - Case Details
Mustafa Yakin / Moniker
Privacy Services, WIPO Case No. D2008-0016; LEGO Juris A/S v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy,
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2010/d2010-0941.html
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2025-06-25 - Case Details
Mustafa Yakin / Moniker Privacy Services,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0016; LEGO Juris A/S v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina
Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-05-22 - Case Details
That previous panels have found that, in the absence of any license or authorization from a complainant to
use its previously registered trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain
can be claimed by a respondent (and cites International Business Machines Corporation v. Chen Hui,
Gname, WIPO Case No. D2021-0240 and LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com
Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-12-18 - Case Details
Aan
de voorwaarden van de OKI Data test is voldaan indien
1. de verweerder daadwerkelijk waren en diensten onder het ingeroepen merk onder de betwiste
domeinnaam aanbiedt;
2. de verweerder uitsluitend deze waren of diensten onder het ingeroepen merk onder de betwiste
domeinnaam aanbiedt (anders bestaat de mogelijkheid dat de verweerder het ingeroepen merk in een
domeinnaam gebruikt om consumenten te lokken en hen vervolgens naar andere waren te leiden;
“bait-and-switch”);
2 Aangezien de Regeling verregaand is gebaseerd op de Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), is het vaste
jurisprudentie dat zaken die zijn beslist op grond van zowel de Regeling als de UDRP en dus WIPO Overview 3.0 relevant zijn voor
deze procedure (zie bijvoorbeeld LEGO Juris A/S v. Stichting RIBW ZWWF, WIPO Zaaknr. DNL2011-0042 en Arie Hendrik den Draak
v. RAPIDE Internet, WIPO Zaaknr. ...
2024-11-04 - Case Details
Mustafa Yakin / Moniker Privacy Services, WIPO Case No. D2008-0016;
LEGO Juris A/S v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio
Electronico, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-10-25 - 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 Respondents are likely to have been fully
aware of the Complainant and the Complainant’s Trademark when they registered the Disputed Domain
Names, given the well-known nature of the Complainant’s brand, evidenced by the various trademark
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2024-10-07 - Case Details
D2015-2175; Dassault (Groupe Industriel Marcel Dassault) v. Ma Xiaojuan,
Caso OMPI No. D2015-1733; Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,
Caso OMPI No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2020-07-21 - Case Details
“.com”为通用顶级域名，是争议域名注册的必要构成部分，在本案中不具有任何区别争议域名与投诉人商标的效果（LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Chen Yong，WIPO 案件编号 D2009-1611）。
因此，专家组认定争议域名与投诉人的MONT MARTE商标相同，投诉书符合政策第4条(a)项所规定的第一个要素。
...
2021-08-04 - Case Details
If the Respondent then fails to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the complaint succeeds under this head.”
4 Ver Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-0624.
5 Ver LEGO Juris A/S v. NyunHwa Jung,
Caso OMPI No. D2012-2491....
2020-04-01 - Case Details
If the Respondent then fails to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the complaint succeeds under this head.”
5 See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-0624.
6 Ver LEGO Juris A/S v. NyunHwa Jung,
Caso OMPI No. D2012-2491....
2021-05-05 - Case Details