WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION LEGO Juris A/S v. Veysel Bagci Case No. D2009-1710 1. The Parties
The Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S of Billund, Denmark, represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services, Sweden.
The Respondent is Veysel Bagci of Düzce, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-C. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 14, 2009. On December 15, 2009, the Center transmitted by email to OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-C a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 16, 2009, OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-C transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on December 17, 2009. The Center verified that the Complaint and amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 17, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 6, 2010. In his email to the Center of December 18, 2009, the Respondent submitted some arguments in response to the Complaint. By email of December 21, 2009, the Respondent objected to the jurisdiction of WIPO to administer the dispute at hand. On January 7, 2010, the Center notified the Parties that the due date for response had passed and that the Center would proceed to appoint a Panel in the proceedings.
The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on January 13, 2010. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark LEGO and various other trademarks used in connection with the LEGO brand for construction toys and other LEGO branded products.
The Complainant's licensees are authorized to exploit the Complainant's intellectual property rights, including its trademark rights, in Turkey (where the Respondent is domiciled) and elsewhere.
The Complainant and its licensees commenced use of the LEGO mark in the United States during 1953, and the use of the LEGO mark has been continuous since then.
The revenue for the LEGO Group in 2008 was more than USD 1.8 billion. The Complainant has subsidiaries and branches throughout the world, and LEGO products are sold in more than 130 countries.
The Complainant is also the owner of more than 1,000 domain names containing the term “lego”.
The trademark LEGO is among the best-known trademarks in the world. Evidence presented by the Complainant shows LEGO as number 8 of the most famous trademarks and brands in the world. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The dominant part of the disputed domain name comprises the word “lego”, which is identical to the Complainant's registered trademark LEGO.
The fame of the LEGO trademark has been confirmed in numerous previous UDRP decisions.
By using the disputed domain name, the Respondent exploits the goodwill and the image of the LEGO trademark, which may result in dilution and other damage for the Complainant's trademarks.
The Respondent does not own any registered trademark or trade names corresponding to the disputed domain name. The Complainant has also not found anything that would suggest that the Respondent has been using the name “Lego” in any other way that would give him any legitimate rights in the name. Consequently, the Respondent may not claim any rights established by common usage.
It is highly unlikely that the Respondent would not have known of the Complainant's legal rights in the name “Lego” at the time of the registration.
The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent is using the domain name to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of his website. B. Respondent
The Respondent asserts among others that he is not related to any kind of business competing against the LEGO company and its products and that there is (i) no infringement of any third party rights or the rights of the Complainant and (ii) no unlawful intention by the Respondent.
Furthermore, the Respondent contests the jurisdiction of the Center to administer this case. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Jurisdiction of the Center
The Respondent has contested the jurisdiction of the Center to administer this case in his email to the Center of December 21, 2009. As set forth in the introduction of paragraph 4 of the Policy, however, the Respondent has submitted to the mandatory administrative proceedings under the UDRP by entering into the registration agreement which incorporates the UDRP by reference with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-C when he registered the disputed domain name. Further, the Panel notes that the registrar has confirmed that the UDRP applies to this disputed domain name. As such, and as an ICANN accredited provider, the Center has jurisdiction to administer this case. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's famous LEGO trademark. The Respondent's addition of the term “mobil” is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the relevant LEGO trademarks which are wholly included in the domain name. The Complainant has thus fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under the circumstances of this case, there are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant, having made a prima facie case which remains unrebutted, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain name is connected to the website of a real estate agency.
It is evident that the Respondent's only purpose in registering the disputed domain name was to divert traffic away from the Complainant's websites to his own website for commercial gain, and by confusing consumers into believing that the Respondent's site is sponsored, endorsed, or otherwise approved of or authorized by the Complainant. Such activity falls squarely within the terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
It may also be concluded that the Respondent knew of the existence of the Complainant's trademark and its significance in the Turkish market when the disputed domain name was registered.
Under the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent's conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use, thus fulfilling paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 27, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy