1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

WIPO - Domain Trademark ...

Discussion in 'Domain Names & Parking' started by Darkxx91, Apr 24, 2015.

  1. Darkxx91

    Darkxx91 Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    On my chair.
    Hello BHW, i recieved a mail and letter from wipo saying.
    Please ask for more information if you wanna help me out.
    What should i do, i'm scared.

    The dominant part of the Domain Name comprises the term LEGO, identical to the registered trademark LEGO, registered by the Complainant as trademarks and domain names in numerous countries all over the world (Annex 6.1-2 and Annex 8). The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant?s trademark LEGO. The fame of the trademark has been confirmed in numerous previous UDRP decisions: Case No. D2008-1692 LEGO Juris A/S v. Level 5 Corp: ?The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that LEGO and LEGOLAND are well-recognized and world famous trademarks and that the trademarks are distinctive?, case No. D2008-1715 LEGO Juris A/S v. Michael Longo: ?The Panel finds, as numerous panels have found before, that the Complainant has established that LEGO is a well-known trademark and that the trademark is distinctive and famous?, and case No. D2009 0680 LEGO Juris A/S v. Reginald Hastings Jr: ?LEGO is a mark enjoying high reputation as construction toys popular with children?

    B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; (Policy, para. 4(a)(ii), Rules, para. 3(b)(ix)(2)) The Complainant has not found that the Respondent has any registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the Domain Name. Neither has the Complainant found anything, including the whois details, that would suggest that the Respondent has been using LEGO in any other way that would give them any legitimate rights in the name. Consequently, the Respondent may not claim any rights established by common usage. No license or authorization of any other kind, has been given by the Complainant to the Respondent, to use the trademark LEGO. In case D2000-0055 Guerlain S.A. v. Peikang the panel stated that: ?in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use any of its trademarks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating those trademarks, it is clear that no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could be claimed by Respondent.? Further, the Respondent is not an authorized dealer of the Complainant?s products and has never had a business relationship with the Complainant. This was stated by the panel as a factor in the finding of non-legitimate interest with the Respondent in case No. D2004-0312 Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Ron Anderson. Nevertheless, there is no disclaimer on the website to explain the lack of relationship to the Complainant.

    =-------------------=
    a. Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that (i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present.