The Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S of Billund, Denmark, represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services, Sweden.
The Respondent is shenglan li of Shanghai, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 24, 2012. On February 24, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to GoD, LLC. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 24, 2012, GoD, LLC. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that 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 February 28, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 19, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 20, 2012.
The Center appointed Dr. Hong Xue as the sole panelist in this matter on March 30, 2012. 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 used in connection with construction toys and other products since 1953. The trademark LEGO has been registered by the Complainant in many countries and regions.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 22, 2011. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states that its registered trademark LEGO has been used in connection with construction toys, books, videos and other products in many countries and regions since 1953.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to the LEGO trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant requests that the Panel issue an order that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), a complainant must prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. In line with such requirement, a complainant must prove both its right in the trademark and the identity or confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and its trademark.
The Panel finds that before the registration of the disputed domain name the Complainant has acquired the trademark right over the mark LEGO through registrations in a number of countries and regions, including China which is the Respondent’s country of residence.
Apart from the generic top-level domain suffix “.com”, the disputed domain name consists of “365” and “lego”. Since “365” is a generic term commonly referring to 365 days in a year and “lego” is identical with the Complainant’s registered trademark, in this Panel’s view, the disputed domain name cannot substantially distinct from the Complainant’s trademark LEGO.
The Panel, therefore, finds that the disputed domain name comprising of the Complainant’s registered trademark LEGO in its entirety and a generic word is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark LEGO.
Accordingly, the Complaint has proven the first element required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserted that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and, as stated above, the Respondent did not provide any information to the Panel asserting any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name.
It is apparent from the Complaint that there is no connection between the Respondent and the Complainant or its business. The Respondent did not rebut the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent was not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The lack of a response in this case leads the Panel to draw a negative inference.
Therefore, and also in light of the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Complaint has proven the second element required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contended the Respondent had registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent did not respond.
The Complainant presents the evidence that the disputed domain name is being used for the website “www.” that sells toys marked as LEGO. Since the disputed domain name is registered and fully controlled by the Respondent, the Respondent is responsible for any use of it. The Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name is highly likely to attract and confuse the consumers with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the disputed domain name’s website or of the products on the website. It is adequate to conclude that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv).
Therefore, the Complaint successfully proves the third element required by paragraph 4(a) 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Dr. Hong Xue
Sole Panelist
Dated: April 13, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy