The Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S of Billund, Denmark, represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services, Sweden.
The Respondent is Danko Dankov of Sofia, Bulgaria. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names and are registered with eNom. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 14, 2012. On June 14, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to eNom a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On June 15, 2012, eNom 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 June 25, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 15, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 19, 2012.
The Center appointed Gérald Page as the sole panelist in this matter on August 1, 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 several well known, used worldwide trademarks containing the word “lego”. The Complainant is using its trademarks in successful and large business operations, with a high turnover worldwide.
The Complainant also owns more than 2,400 domain names containing the word “lego”, including the domain name as well as the trademark LEGO registered in Bulgaria, the country of domicile of the Respondent as well as the European community trademark no. 000039800, registered on October 5, 1998.
The trademark LEGO is highly distinctive. The level of awareness in the market and the public is very high.
The Respondent apparently uses the disputed domain names in conjunction with online sale activities of LEGO products. However, the Respondent has no license or authorization to do so. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical and confusingly similar to its trade and service marks. The word “lego”, which is distinctive in the global word, is identical to the protected trademarks. The addition of the word “igri” is irrelevant. To the contrary, it adds confusion since the word “igri” in Bulgarian means “play” or “game”, thus creating a direct conceptual relation to the Complainant’s products and services.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with regard to the disputed domain names. There are no registered trademarks of the Respondent corresponding to the domain names. The Respondent has no license and authorization to use the word “lego”. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is using the disputed domain names merely to generate traffic to its own online shops, for its own commercial interest.
Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent uses the said disputed domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The Respondent did not show in particular any rights in trademarks and did not present any arguable good faith interest in the use of the disputed domain names. By its silence, both to the summoning letter of the Complainant and to the request for submission in these proceedings, the Respondent also shows that the factual presentation and arguments presented by the Complainant are not challenged. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names make use of the similar, distinctive, word “lego”. They add a non distinctive addition (IGRI) which by itself adds to the confusion because of its English meaning (“play” or “game”).
The Panel therefore accepts that the disputed domain names are identical and confusingly similar to the trademark (LEGO) and domain names legitimately and long used by the Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent, through its silence, has not shown the existence of any rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain names. It could not show any legitimacy therefore in the use of such denominations. The Panel therefore accepts that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of any license or authorization to use such domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
By not responding to the summons and letters of the Complainant, and by not filing any response or submission in the present proceedings, the Respondent has shown that the use of the disputed domain names, as presented by the Complainant, is made only for the purpose of generating traffic in the Respondent’s own personal business and commercial interest, as per paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel cannot see any bona fide use by the Respondent of the disputed domain names.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names and be transferred to the Complainant.
Gérald Page
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 31, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy