The Complainant is Lego Juris A/S of Billund, Denmark, represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services, Sweden.
The Respondent is Ni How of Nanjing, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with A, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 9, 2012. On November 12, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 14, 2012, the Registrar 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 November 21, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 11, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 13, 2012.
The Center appointed Nicolas Ulmer as the sole panelist in this matter on December 19, 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 owns the trademark LEGO, and many similar trademarks that are used in connection with the LEGO brand of construction toys and other products. The Complainant holds numerous LEGO trademarks in numerous jurisdictions, including China. According to the Complaint the LEGO brand is licensed to specific licensees who are authorized to use its trademark rights. Also according to the Complaint LEGO products are sold in 130 countries and sales revenue from LEGO products exceeded USD 2.8 billion in 2009. The Complainant also states that it holds 2,400 domain names and has a strict policy that all domain names containing the word “lego” should be owned by it.
It appears that the Complainant sent three cease and desist letters or warning letters without any response from the Respondent. The disputed domain name was registered in July of 2012.
This case is substantially similar, and the Complaint essentially identical, to the case of LEGO JURIS A/S v. Above com Domain Privacy/State Services,WIPO Case No. D2012-2174, which has recently been decided by the same Panel. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant submits that the LEGO name and trademark are famous, extensively advertised and entitled to protection. As to the disputed domain name the Complainant asserts that: it is confusingly similar to its world famous trademark, and that the addition of the suffix “girls” does not diminish this similarity; that it has never accorded the Respondent rights in its trademarks or name and that Respondent has no rights in the same; and that it is clear that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks and fame and then was used in bad faith to generate traffic with sponsored links.
The Complainant accordingly asks that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions or the Complaint. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name begins with and contains the entirety of the Complainant’s well-known and trademarked name and is therefore confusingly similar to it. The gratuitous addition of the suffix “girls” does little or nothing to dissipate this confusing similarity. The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is accordingly proven. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There is no evidence or inference in the case file to suggest that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interest in the Complainant’s trademark or the disputed domain name, or that it is known by that name. The Complainant has clearly and convincingly explained that it is aware of no trademark or right on which the Respondent could rely and that the Complainant has never licensed its trademark to or authorized its use by the Respondent. In the absence of any reply or explanation by the Respondent, the Complainant has met its burden of proving the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant’s evidence of the fame, reputation and goodwill that attaches to its LEGO trademark is convincing, and it is obvious that the Respondent’s July 2012 choice of that trademarked word for the disputed domain name was not serendipitous. Indeed there have, the Complainant points out, been a large number of recent unauthorized domain name registrations seeking improperly to capitalize on combinations of the LEGO mark. The Panel is convinced that the registration of the disputed domain name was in bad faith.
The Respondent’s bad faith use of the disputed domain name is also evident. The disputed domain name has been used for “pay per click” advertising links, including potential links to the Complainant’s competitors products. This is not here a bona fide use within the meaning of the Policy; to the contrary the Respondent has improperly sought to make use of the Complainant’s fame, trademarks and goodwill for its own profit. The failure to answer cease and desists letters is further, additional, indicia of bad faith.
The third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is, accordingly, also proven. 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.
Nicolas Ulmer
Sole Panelist
Date: December 20, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy