Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-2404
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:10:40+00:00

Document:
Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S of Billund, Denmark, represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Respondent is li ronghui of Fujian, China.
The disputed domain name <legoweb.info> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 6, 2012. On December 6, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 6, 2012, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, which was received by Respondent as per the Mail Delivery Subsystem (dated December 14, 2012, at 15:40); furthermore, Respondent received the parcel sent by DHL. Thus, the proceedings formally commenced on December 14, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 3, 2013. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 10, 2013.
The Center appointed Fernando Triana, Esq. as the sole panelist in this matter on January 30, 2013. 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.
Complainant owns the trademark LEGO, which is largely protected around the world in connection with the toys and related goods, especially in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, China, Denmark, Latin America, the African Union and the European Community.
Complainant’s products identified with the trademark LEGO are sold in more than 130 countries including China. Complainant opened a flagship store in China in 2007.
The trademark LEGO has substantial inherent and acquired distinctiveness. It is a well-known trademark with widespread reputation.
The disputed domain name comprises the word “lego”, which is identical to Complainant’s trademark LEGO. The addition of the suffix “web” is irrelevant on the overall impression of the disputed domain name since it is a generic term.
The likelihood of confusion is a considerable risk given that the public might perceive the disputed domain name as owned or sponsored by Complainant.
Respondent does not have neither registered trademarks nor trade names corresponding to the disputed domain name, has not been authorized to use the trademark LEGO by Complainant and is not a dealer of Complainant’s goods.
The fame of Complainant’s trademark LEGO motivated the Respondent to register the disputed domain name.
Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, since Respondent chose the disputed domain name in order to generate traffic to a website which displays sponsored links, tarnishing the trademark LEGO.
Respondent has chosen the disputed domain name with Complainant’s trademark LEGO in order to generate traffic for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark LEGO.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name reproduces Complainant’s trademark with the mere inclusion of the suffix “web” which is irrelevant in the overall impression of the disputed domain name.
In the first place, before establishing whether or not the disputed domain name <legoweb.info> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark LEGO, the Panel wants to point out that the addition of generic top-level domains (gTLD), i.e. “.com”, “.biz”, “.edu” or “.org”, may be disregarded when determining if the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark2. The same applies to country code top-level domains (ccTLD), i.e., “.co.”, “.de”, “.cr”, “.es”.
Thus, the inclusion of the “.info” (gTLD), in the disputed domain name may be disregarded in analyzing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which complainant asserts rights. The addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name “.info” is without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants, ‘.info’ is one of only several such gTLDs, and ‘.info’ does not serve to identify a specific enterprise as a source of goods or services.
Furthermore, the Panel believes that the disputed domain name <legoweb.info> is confusingly similar to the trademark LEGO as per the typical UDRP criteria. The Panel considers that the reproduction of the trademark LEGO, by the disputed domain name <legoweb.info>, is sufficient ground to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark3. Especially since the disputed domain name reproduces entirely Complainant’s trademark without any other distinctive elements. Consequently, consumers will assume that the owner of the disputed domain name is the manufacturer of LEGO toys.
In addition, the Panel agrees with Complainant on the conclusion that including the term “web” as a suffix of the disputed domain name is not sufficient to make the disputed domain name different from the trademark LEGO.
In fact, the expression “web”, refers to the “world wide web”, which according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary means “a part of the Internet accessed through a graphical user interface and containing documents often connected by hyperlinks —called also Web”4. Hence, the expression “web” within the disputed domain name merely evokes the idea of the trademark LEGO in the “world wide web”. Consequently, the expression “web” is generic and descriptive regarding the presence of the LEGO trademark in “world wide web”. Therefore, consumers are likely to expect the disputed domain name to be related to the LEGO trademark. Thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
Respondent merely adds a generic or descriptive expression “web” to the distinctive trademark LEGO. This addition rather than distinguishing the disputed domain names from Complainant’s trademarks makes it confusingly similar to the trademarks5. Hence, the disputed domain name should be deemed as confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark6.
In consequence, as per this reasoning, the Panel finds that, in the present case, the disputed domain name <legoweb.info> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark LEGO and thus, the requirement set forth in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is duly complied with.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name <legoweb.info> because: i) Respondent does not have any registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the disputed domain name; ii) Respondent has not been authorized by Complainant to use the trademark LEGO in any manner; iii) Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent has chosen the disputed domain name in order to generate traffic to a website which displays sponsored links, hence, Respondent is not making a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name; iv) Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name; and v) Respondent must have known Complainant’s trademark since it is a “well-known” and “reputed” trademark9.
(i) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent has not provided evidence of legitimate use of the disputed domain name or reasons to justify the usage of the word “lego” in its business operation.
Thus, Complainant established that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name <legoweb.info>, which Respondent did not rebut. Therefore, the requirement set forth in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is duly complied with.
Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name <legoweb.info> in bad faith, since he or she must have had knowledge of the trademark LEGO on June 19, 201210.
“The record indicates that Complainant has owned the LEGO trademark for decades and has registered the mark in multiple jurisdictions for Class 28 goods which include construction toys as well as other classes. Prior decisions have held that the LEGO mark is well-known, including LEGO Juris A/S v. Reginald Hastings Jr, supra (‘The LEGO mark is well-known worldwide’), LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench, WIPO Case No. DNL2009-0052 (“Complainant has established that the LEGO trademark has acquired a high reputation and should be considered as well-recognized and world famous”), and LEGO Juris A/S v. Michael Longo, supra (“The Panel finds it established that the trademark LEGO is well-known”). Decisions have also recognized the fame of the LEGOLAND trademark, such as LEGO Juris A/S v. Level 5 Corp., supra (“The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that LEGO and LEGOLAND are well-recognized and world famous trademarks and that the trademarks are distinctive”) and LEGO Juris A/S v. Domainproxyagent.com and Compsys Domain Solutions Private Limited, WIPO Case No. D2009-0381 (“finding for Complainant and ordering the transfer of <legolandusa.com>, noting that Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant given the ‘nature of the LEGO and LEGOLAND marks as well-known, if not famous…”)” 12.
Thus, this Panel shares the view that the mere fact of knowingly incorporating a third-party’s well-known mark in a domain name constitutes registration in bad faith13. The selection of this word is certainly not a random decision; the Panel finds that it is a consequence of Respondent’s prior knowledge of the trademark LEGO. This fact, by itself, is registration in bad faith in the Panel’s opinion14.
In addition, Complainant contends in the Complaint that Respondent is using the disputed domain name <legoweb.info> in bad faith, since the disputed domain name resolves to a website which displays sponsored links. Thus, Respondent chose the word “lego” in order to generate traffic to its website.
The Panel finds that Respondent must have known that the word “lego” within the disputed domain name would attract Internet users seeking Complainant’s trademark, to the website from which he or she expected to make financial gain. Thus, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark.
Complainant also mentions that Respondent’s website contains sponsored links being a pay-per-click site, and the Panel accepts the uncontested evidence submitted by Complainant that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to host a page consisting of pay-per-click links to commercial websites related to several businesses. As in Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Direct Navigation Data Inc., WIPO Case No. D2012-1448, this Panel believes that “pay-per-click advertisement is a valid Internet advertising model which does not necessarily entail use of a domain name in bad faith. However, this Panel also believes that registering a domain name which comprises someone else’s well-known mark so as to make profit from diverted Internet users in the form of pay-per-click fees, is use in bad faith as per Policy 4(b)(iv)”.
Additionally, as per Exhibit 12 to the Complaint, on August 17, 2012, Complainant sent a cease and desist letter requesting Respondent to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant for which Complainant would pay all expenses. Respondent did not respond to the letter, despite Complainant reminders sent on September 13 and 27, 2012.
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 <legoweb.info> be transferred to Complainant.
3 See ER Marks, Inc. and QVC, Inc. v. Stefan Hansmann, NAF Claim No. 1381755; see also Oki Data Americas., Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903.
9 See LEGO Juris A/S v. Wyntergreen.ca, D2010-2101(“The record indicates that Complainant has owned the LEGO trademark for decades and has registered the mark in multiple jurisdictions for Class 28 goods which include construction toys as well as other classes. Prior decisions have held that the LEGO mark is well-known, including LEGO Juris A/S v. Reginald Hastings Jr, supra (“The LEGO mark is well-known worldwide”), LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench, WIPO Case No. DNL2009-0052 (“Complainant has established that the LEGO trademark has acquired a high reputation and should be considered as well-recognized and world famous”), and LEGO Juris A/S v. Michael Longo, supra (“The Panel finds it established that the trademark LEGO is well-known”). Decisions have also recognized the fame of the LEGOLAND trademark, such as LEGO Juris A/S v. Level 5 Corp., supra (“The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that LEGO and LEGOLAND are well-recognized and world famous trademarks and that the trademarks are distinctive”) and LEGO Juris A/S v. Domainproxyagent.com and Compsys Domain Solutions Private Limited, WIPO Case No. D2009-0381 (finding for Complainant and ordering the transfer of <legolandusa.com>, noting that Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant given the “nature of the LEGO and LEGOLAND marks as well-known, if not famous…”)”.).
14 See Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Direct Navigation Data Inc., WIPO Case No. D2012-1448.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.