Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1634
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:42:39+00:00

Document:
The Respondents are PrivacyProtect.org of Nobby Beach, Queensland, Australia and yang yuan gongsi, huangyuqin of Fujian, China (the “Respondent”).
The disputed domain name <176lego.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the“Center”) on August 15, 2012.
On August 15, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On August 16, 2012, 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 August 17, 2012 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 amendment to the Complaint on August 17, 2012.
The Center verified that the Complaint and the amendment to 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 August 23, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for response was September 12, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 14, 2012.
The Complainant LEGO Juris A/S, based in Denmark, is the owner of the well-known LEGO trademark and other trademarks used in connection with the LEGO brand of construction toys and other LEGO branded products. In particular, the Complainant holds trademark registrations in Australia, China and the United States of America (“United States”). The Complainant and its licensees, through their predecessors, commenced use of the LEGO trademark in the United States in 1953, to identify construction toys made and sold by them. Over the years, the business of making and selling LEGO branded toys has grown. Furthermore, the Complainant is the owner of more than 2,400 domain names containing the term “lego”. The trademark LEGO is among the best-known trademarks in the world. For instance, LEGO was selected by Superbrands UK as number 8 of the most famous trademarks and brands in the world.
The Disputed Domain Name <176lego.com> was registered by the Respondent on February 15, 2012.
The Complainant contends that the Complainant is the owner of the well-known trademark LEGO and the Disputed Domain Name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark LEGO. The Complainant contends that the prefix “176” does not detract from the overall impression and the Disputed Domain Name must therefore be considered to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant also contends that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. First, the trademark LEGO is a worldwide famous trademark, which means that the Respondent would have been aware of the rights the Complainant had in the trademark LEGO and the value of said trademark, at the time of registration. Second, there is no connection between the Respondent and the Complainant. Third, in its use of the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent is not making a “legitimate non-commercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain” but is misleadingly diverting consumers for its own commercial gain.
The dominant part of the Disputed Domain Name <176lego.com> comprises the term “lego”, which is identical to the registered trademark LEGO, and has been registered by the Complainant as trademarks and domain names in numerous countries.
The Panel is prepared to find that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous trademark LEGO.
The fame of the trademark has been confirmed in numerous previous UDRP decisions. See LEGO Juris A/S v. RampePurda, WIPO Case No. D2010-0840; LEGO Juris A/S v. Domain Administrator, WIPO Case No. D2010-1260.
Although the Disputed Domain Name differs from the Complainant’s trademarks by the addition of the numerical prefix “176”, the Panel finds that this does not eliminate the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s registered trademark LEGO and the Disputed Domain Name <176lego.com>. The addition of the prefix “176” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant part of the name, LEGO, instantly recognizable as a famous trademark. It is a long-established precedent that confusing similarity is generally recognized when well-known trademarks are paired up with different kinds of generic prefixes and suffixes. See Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. RojeenRayaneh, WIPO Case No. D2004-0488.
The addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant portion of the Disputed Domain Name and is therefore irrelevant to determine the confusing similarity between the trademark and the Disputed Domain Name.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights and paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
The Panel agrees that “where a complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name, it is incumbent upon the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion.” Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624. Thus, in the absence of a response or any communication from the Respondent the Panel believes that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, which the Respondent has not rebutted, and satisfied the second element of the test in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
The trademark LEGO in respect of toys belonging to the Complainant has the status of a well-known and reputed trademark with a substantial and widespread reputation throughout the world. See LEGO Juris A/S v. RampePurda, WIPO Case No. D2010-0840 and LEGO Juris A/S v. Reginald Hastings Jr, WIPO Case No. D2009-0680. Therefore, in the Panel’s view, it is highly unlikely that the Respondent did not know of the Complainant's trademark LEGO at the time of the registration of the Disputed Domain Name.
The Panel agrees that “these facts make it likely that Respondent knew Complainant’s marks and unlikely that Respondent innocently registered the disputed domain name without such knowledge. Respondent’s knowledge of Complainant and Complainant’s LEGO Marks is strong evidence of bad faith” (see Juris A/S v. Raheel Ra and Protected Domain Services, WIPO Case No. D2011-0835).
Further, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy states that where a registrant, by using a domain name, intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant’s website, such use constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Panel finds that the website connected to the Disputed Domain Name is clearly commercial as it displays numerous different advertising content to, for example, gambling sites. The Panel agrees that “[u]se of a well-known trademark in a domain name is likely to cause consumer confusion because Internet users are likely to believe that the content is owned by, sponsored by, affiliated with, or endorsed by the trademark owner. Differences between goods advertised on a disputed domain name and those offered under the well-known trademark at issue do not dispel the likelihood of consumer confusion.” LEGO Juris A/S v. Tang Qingming, WIPO Case No. D2011-1526.
The Respondent has failed to submit any evidence or arguments to rebut the above contentions of the Complainant.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy to be satisfied.
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 <176lego.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

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