LEGO Juris A/S v Vahid Kiumarsi, Lego Art

WIPO Case No. D2024-0110

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

LEGO Juris A/S v. Vahid Kiumarsi, Lego Art

Case No. D2024-0110

1. The Parties

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

Sweden.

The Respondent is Vahid Kiumarsi, Lego Art, Netherlands (Kingdom of the).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <legoart.shop> is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 11, 2024.
On January 11, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On January 12, 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 (Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0168662624) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 18,
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

January 23, 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 January 24, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was February 13, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 14, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on February 19, 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.

The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties.

Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to [the] Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a response from the Respondent.

The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S, a Danish company mainly operating in the field of construction toys and owning several trademark registrations for LEGO, among which:

- United States of America Trademark Registration No. 1018875 for LEGO, registered on August 26, 1975;

- European Union Trademark Registration No. 000039800 for LEGO, registered on October 5, 1998;

- United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00000844309 for LEGO, registered on January 25, 1963;

- United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00001283286 for LEGO, registered on August 9, 1991.

The Complainant operates on the Internet at the main website “ as well as with many other generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) and country code Top-Level Domains (“ccTLDs”) including the trademark LEGO.

The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above.

According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on September 16, 2023, and it resolves to a website in which mosaic style art works crafted from what are claimed to be LEGO compatible bricks are offered for sale under the name “Lego Art”.

On October 3, 10, and 17, 2023 the Complainant’s legal representatives sent cease-and-desist letters by email to the Respondent, without receiving any reply.

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.

page 3

Notably, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark LEGO, as the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, with the addition of the term “art”.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademark within the disputed domain name, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain

name and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website in which mosaic
style art works crafted from Lego compatible bricks are purportedly offered for sale under the name Lego Art.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark LEGO is well-known. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Complainant contends that the

use of the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant and attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website, qualifies as bad faith
registration and use.

Finally, the Complainant suspects that the Respondent might also use the disputed domain name in connection with phishing or fraudulent email communications, since the mail exchanger (MX) records attached to the disputed domain name have been activated.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has made no reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is in default. In reference to paragraphs 5(f) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward or are apparent from the record.

A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii)      the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 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.

page 4

The entirety of the 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.

Although the addition of other terms, here “art”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.shop”, is typically ignored
when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section

1.11.1.

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.

While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have
recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the
often impossible 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. 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 record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the by using bricks which are supposedly compatible with the Complainant’s LEGO products; this is however done using the Complaint’s name both on the website and in the disputed domain name – creating the false impression the site and products are sponsored by the Complainant or use their actual products, neither of which is accurate. Had the Respondent used actual LEGO products and been forthcoming about its lack of relationship with the Complainant, a different (fair use) analysis may very well apply; that is not however the case here.

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 further notes that the Respondent provides no contact information whatsoever on its site, and failed to reply to the Complainant’s cease and desist letters and has also failed to provide any arguments in this regard.

Accordingly, 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 5

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.

In the present case, regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark LEGO is clearly established, and the Panel finds that the Respondent plainly knew of the Complainant and deliberately registered the confusingly similar disputed domain name, especially

because the website at the disputed domain name is offering for sale mosaic style art works crafted from
apparently LEGO compatible bricks but under the name “Lego Art” thereby giving the false impression that
the artworks are either associated with the Complaint or composed of actual Lego products, or both.

The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name is also used in bad faith, since the Respondent is intentionally attempting to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the disputed domain name’s source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

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 <legoart.shop> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Edoardo Fano/
Edoardo Fano
Sole Panelist
Date: February 29, 2024