其余部分为"zg"和".com"。".com"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）。
至于"zg"只是普通英文字母组合的字符串，没有区别争议域名与投诉人拥有的商标的效果（Deutz AG 诉 Liushuliang，WIPO 案件编号 D2013-1807；J. ...
2017-03-29 - Case Details
其余部分为"sz"和".com"。".com"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）。
至于"sz"只是普通英文字母组合的字符串，没有区别争议域名与投诉人拥有的商标的效果（Deutz AG 诉 Liushuliang，WIPO 案件编号 D2013-1807；J. ...
2017-03-29 - Case Details
其余部分为"zj"和".com"。".com"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）。
至于"zj"只是普通英文字母组合的字符串，没有区别争议域名与投诉人拥有的商标的效果（Deutz AG 诉 Liushuliang，WIPO 案件编号 D2013-1807；J. ...
2017-03-29 - 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. ...
2015-08-06 - Case Details
反而，在本案中该名字可能增加争议域名与投诉人商标之间的混淆性，因为投诉人试图收购Medivation, Inc。关于通用顶级域名，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。...
2016-08-01 - Case Details
专家组认为这一决定并不会给当事双方造成不公平且能促使行政程序高效及经济地进行。并且，专家组决定使用中文作出本案裁决。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，方能胜诉。
...
2016-05-30 - Case Details
Ya se encontró mala fe en casos donde un nombre de dominio estaba tan obviamente vinculado con una marca notaria que su solo uso por una persona sin vínculos con la marca sugiere mala fe oportunista. Ver LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
Caso OMPI No. D2010-0494, y Sanofi-Aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2016-05-26 - Case Details
本案争议域名<1ar.top>完全包含投诉人1 AR商标字样，除此之外仅添加了通用顶级域名“.top”。专家组认为，“.top”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)。
因此，专家组认定争议域名与投诉人的1 AR商标相同或混淆性相似。投诉书符合政策第4条(a)项所规定的第一个要素。
...
2016-09-06 - Case Details
诉 Shenzhenhuaxing，WIPO 案件编号 D2008-0557（域名为)。关于通用顶级域名，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）。
...
2016-11-16 - Case Details
Jasper Developments Pty. Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0795; LEGO Juris A/S v. Above.com Domain Privacy, Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host Master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-06-01 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have found that in the absence of any license or permission from a complainant to use widely-known trademarks, no actual or contemplated 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. ...
2011-04-28 - Case Details
This does not constitute fair use of Complainant's trademark because Respondent is using Complainant's trademark to advertise goods and services of third parties that include competitors of Complainant (even though part of the content on Respondent's website addresses Complainant's television program in an informational way). See, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Lothar Evers,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1711.
Respondent has failed to rebut Complainant's prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2011-06-03 - Case Details
Trademark Worx LLC a/k/a Richard Yaming, NAF Claim No. 1370035 (Trademark Worx LLC a/k/a Richard Yaming, ); and LEGO Juris A/S v. Yang Kyung Won,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1124 (Yang Kyung Won, ).1 In each of these UDRP proceedings, the panel found against the respondent and transferred the domain name to the complainant. ...
2012-09-27 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have found that in the absence of any license or permission from a complainant to use widely-known trademarks, no actual or contemplated 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. ...
2012-06-07 - 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 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. ...
2012-10-22 - Case Details
In that case the panel held
that “[t]he disputed domain name is confusingly similar
to the trademark LEGO, the mere inclusion of an additional letter, in the present
case the letter “s”, is not a distinctive feature and the Complainant’s
trademark is entirely contained in the disputed domain name…..”
...
2006-08-21 - Case Details
无论该合作进展与否，该公司与投诉人已有关联。
关于通用顶级域名，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）。...
2017-06-08 - Case Details
参见WIPO Overview 3.0，第3.3段；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：(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。
...
2017-11-01 - Case Details
It is well-established that typically 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. ...
2017-10-25 - Case Details
参见WIPO Overview 3.0，第3.3段；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：(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。
...
2017-11-24 - Case Details