LEGO Juris A/S v Name Redacted

WIPO Case No. D2024-5267

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

LEGO Juris A/S v. Name Redacted

Case No. D2024-5267

1. The Parties

The Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S, Denmark, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB,

Sweden.

The Respondent is Name Redacted. [1]

[1]The Respondent appears to have used the name of an unrelated individual when registering the disputed domain names. In light of the

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <legolandtoronto.online> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 20, 2024. On December 23, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 23, 2024, 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, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 24, 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 December 31, 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

page 2

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 January 6, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was January 26, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 27, 2025.

On January 8, 2025, a third party contacted the Center regarding unauthorized use of their identity and contact details in relation to the disputed domain name in the present proceedings.

The Center appointed Teruo Kato as the sole panelist in this matter on January 29, 2025. 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

According to the Complainant, the Complainant is based in Denmark and is the owner of LEGO, LEGOLAND, and all other trademarks used in connection with the LEGO brands of construction toys and other LEGO branded products, and it has subsidiaries and branches throughout the world, and LEGO products are sold in more than 130 countries, including in Canada.

The Complainant holds, among others, the Canadian trademark for LEGOLAND and LEGO LAND, registration number TMA185262, registered on September 1, 1972, in classes 16 and 28, and the Canadian trademark for LEGO, registration number TMA106457, registered on April 26, 1957, in classes 7, 9, 12, 16, 20, and 28.

The disputed domain name was registered on October 22, 2024. At present it does not resolve to an active website, but the Complainant contends with evidence that, prior to Complainant’s partners requesting a takedown of the disputed domain name’s website, the Respondent was using the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant and sell Complainant’s products at significantly discounted rates.

Based on the WhoIs record, the Registrant Name is “Redacted for Privacy”. The Registrar has advised the Center of the identity of the Registrant as recorded. A third party claimed that the said identity belongs to an individual, who is a minor residing in Canada, and that the individual is unrelated to the disputed domain name.

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.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the LEGOLAND mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

Although the addition of term, “Toronto”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

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 Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

page 4

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as set out in 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed impersonation and the subsequently discovered identity theft, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds 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 <legolandtoronto.online> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Teruo Kato/
Teruo Kato
Sole Panelist
Date: February 4, 2025

Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.

potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 indicated Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See
to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain names, which includes the name of the