ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION LEGO Juris A/S v. benjamin buell Case No. D2024-3967 1. The Parties The Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S, Denmark, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. The Respondent is benjamin buell, Brazil. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 27, 2024. On September 27, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the dame day, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 1, 2024, 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 October 3, 2024. 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 October 7, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 27, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 28, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on November 5, 2024. 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, a Danish company, is the owner of the trademark LEGO, used by its licensees in connection with the sale of construction toys and other LEGO-branded products in over 130 countries, including Brazil. The Complainant has provided the Panel with details of a considerable number of trademark registrations for LEGO, including the Brazil trademark registration No. 006707319 for LEGO, registered on June 25, 1978, as well as prior decisions under the Policy concerning its LEGO trademark in which the Complainant was successful. The disputed domain name was registered on August 14, 2024, and had formerly been connected to a website displaying the Complainant’s LEGO trademark and logo and seemingly offering LEGO-branded toy products for sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with the legitimate sale of goods or services, and the Complainant has never granted permission to the Respondent to use its LEGO trademark in connection with the registration of a domain name, or otherwise. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of ownership of its LEGO trademark for the purposes of these proceedings. The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s LEGO trademark in its entirety, rendering the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The addition of the word “compre” (which is the Portuguese word for “buy”) does not detract from this finding. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
page 3 B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Complainant claims the Respondent is not an authorized dealer of the Complainant’s products and has never had a business relationship with the Complainant. The Panel notes that the nature of the disputed domain name along with the content of the website (reproducing the Complainant’s LEGO trademark in its entirety), indicates the Respondent’s intention to create a risk of affiliation or association with the Complainant and its mark. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Panels have held that the use of a domain name found to be confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark in connection with an impersonating website purportedly offering for sale the goods of the complainant constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds that by registering the disputed domain name that incorporates the prior LEGO mark in full, and resolving it to the website that displays the LEGO mark and purportedly offers the LEGO-branded products for sale, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation of the website, and thus the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 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. /George R. F. Souter/ George R. F. Souter Sole Panelist Date: November 19, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy