The Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S, Denmark, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Ruslan Kuzmych, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 17, 2019. On September 17, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 17, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 20, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 23, 2019. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 26, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 16, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 17, 2019. The Center appointed Colin O’Brien as the sole panelist in this matter on October 29, 2019. 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, based in Denmark, is the owner of the LEGO trademark used in connection with construction toys and other products. LEGO branded products are sold in more than 130 countries. The Complainant has registered its LEGO trademark throughout the world including Ukraine (Ukraine Reg. No. 2347 registered November 15, 1993 and Reg. No. 869258). The Complainant also owns close to 5,000 domain names containing its LEGO trademark. The disputed domain name was registered on May 29, 2019 and it resolves to a page to purports to offer for sale LEGO branded products including LEGO City products. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known LEGO trademark because it incorporates in its entirety the LEGO mark; the addition of “city” does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the LEGO mark; the LEGO City playsets are well known to consumers; the addition of the hyphen in the disputed domain name does nothing to distinguish it from the LEGO mark; and the addition of “.org” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant portion of the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not have any rights of legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because it does not have any registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the disputed domain name; the Respondent is neither an authorized seller nor a licensee of the Complainant; the obvious inference is the fame of the LEGO mark motivated the Respondent to register the disputed domain name; and the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to apparently offer for sale LEGO branded products without the authorization of the Complainant. The disputed domain name which incorporates the Complainant’s famous LEGO mark was registered and is being used in bad faith to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its own website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has demonstrated it owns registered trademark rights in the LEGO mark both worldwide and in Ukraine. The addition of the descriptive phrase “city” is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has presented a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; has not at any time been commonly known by the disputed domain name; but is using the disputed domain name to apparently offer for sale LEGO branded products without the authorization of the Complainant. After a complainant has made a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to present evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See, e.g., Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455. Here, the Respondent has provided no evidence of any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Moreover, the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. In the absence of any evidence indicating a legitimate reason for registering the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof in establishing the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) states that evidence of bad faith may include a respondent’s use of a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users, for commercial gain. Due to the worldwide renown of the LEGO mark, it is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant. The disputed domain name is used for a website that appears to be selling LEGO branded products, but the Complainant has established that the Respondent's use is not authorized. The facts establish a deliberate effort by the Respondent to cause confusion with the Complainant for commercial gain. The Panel notes that LEGO products are extremely popular with children and the website associated with the disputed domain name appears designed to lure unsophisticated users into providing credit card information to what is likely a sham entity. Under the circumstances, the Panel finds no plausible good faith reason for the Respondent's conduct and concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and 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 Colin O’Brien
Sole Panelist
Date: November 12, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy