The Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S of Billund, Denmark, represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services, Sweden.
The Respondent is Ibnu Firdaus of Bandung, Jawa Barat, Indonesia. 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 June 29, 2012. On June 29, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to GoD, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 29, 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 July 4, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 24, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 25, 2012.
The Center appointed Gérald Page as the sole panelist in this matter on August 7, 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, worldwide used trademarks containing the word “lego”. The Complainant is using its trademarks in successful and large business operations, with a high turnover worldwide.
The trademark LEGO is among the best-known trademarks in the world, due in part to decades of extensive advertising, which prominently depicts the LEGO mark on all products, packaging, displays, and promotional materials.
The trademark LEGO is highly distinctive. The level of awareness in the market and the public is very high.
The Respondent is using the disputed domain name . However, the Respondent has no license or authorization to do so.
The disputed domain name was registered in January 4, 2012. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the registered litigious domain name is identical or 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 “eisenbahn”, which means in German “rail way”, is irrelevant. The Complainant has a specific product named “LEGO Eisenbahn”. The disputed domain name creates 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 name. There are no registered trademarks of the Respondent corresponding to the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no license and authorization to use the word “lego”.
The disputed domain name is currently connected to a website displaying links to “A”. The Respondent is using the LEGO trademark and is misleading Internet users to commercial web sites. That use is made to intentionally attempt, for commercial gain, to divert Internet traffic to its website.
Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The Panel further notes that the Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s letter, neither did he reply to the subsequent reminders. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name makes use of the similar, distinctive, word “lego”. It adds a non distinctive addition (“eisenbahnx”).
The panel therefore accepts that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent, through its silence, has not shown the existence of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In this Panel’s view, the Respondent could not show any legitimacy in the use of such denomination. The Panel therefore accepts that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name without any rights or legitimate interests.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of any license or authorization to use the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the second element of the UDRP. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
By not responding to the letter and reminders of the Complainant, and by not filing any response or submission in the present proceedings, the Respondent has conceded that the use of the disputed domain name, as presented by the Complainant, is made only for the purpose of generating traffic in the Respondent’s own personal business and commercial interest.
The Panel cannot see any bona fide use by the Respondent of the disputed domain name.
Based on the evidence provided in the case file, the Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is 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 name be transferred to the Complainant.
Gérald Page
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 31, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy