LEGO Juris A/S v WPH Online

WIPO Case No. D2023-4231

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

LEGO Juris A/S v. WPH Online

Case No. D2023-4231

1. The Parties

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

Sweden.

The Respondent is WPH Online, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <lego-set.xyz> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 11, 2023.
On October 11, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On October 11, 2023, 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 (WPH Online) and contact information in the Complaint. The
Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 12, 2023, 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 17, 2023.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaintsatisfied 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 19, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was November 8, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 15, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on November 22, 2023. 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 in this administrative proceeding is LEGO Juris A/S, a limited company incorporated in
Denmark.

The Complainant has subsidiaries and branches throughout the world, and LEGO products are sold in more than 130 countries, including in the United States of America (“United States”) and the European Union. The LEGO trademark and brand have been recognized as being famous.

The Complainant has a huge number of registrations for the LEGO trademark around the world including in the United States, where the Respondent apparently resides. Indeed, the Complainant has provided a full list of trademarks registered in jurisdictions around the world.

The Complainant is, inter alia, the owner of United States trademark LEGO (word), registration number

1018875, registered on August 26, 1975.

In addition, the Complainant is the owner of close to 5,000 domain names containing the trademark LEGO.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 7, 2023.

The disputed domain name redirects to a page where pay-per-click links are displayed. From the submissions provided by the Complainant it appears that previously (at least on September 14, 2023) the disputed domain name resolved to a landing page featuring sponsored links to third party websites offering inter alia products competing with those offered by the Complainant.

The Complainant’s representatives sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent, which remains unanswered.

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.

inter alia products competing with those offered by the Complainant is clear inference of bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the name, and particularly that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a landing page featuring sponsored links to third party websites offering

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds 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 Panel finds 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.

The Panel finds the mark is recognizable 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 “-” (a hyphen) and the term “set”, 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.

Based on the available record, 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.

page 4

Based on the available record, 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.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.

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, the Panel notes that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark registrations and rights to the LEGO trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.

“Lego” is not a common or descriptive term, but one of the world's most renowned trademarks. The disputed
domain name reproduces, without any authorization or approval, the Complainant’s registered LEGO

trademarks, and this is the only distinctive component of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name was registered many years after the Complainant’s renowned trademark was
registered. In addition, owing to the substantial presence established worldwide and on the Internet by the
Complainant, it is at the least very unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the existence of the
Complainant’s trademarks when registering the disputed domain name.

Therefore, it is more likely than not that the Respondent, when registering the disputed domain name, had knowledge of the Complainant’s earlier rights to the LEGO trademark and trade name.

The bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name are also affirmed by the fact that the Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter, nor has it denied the assertions of bad faith made by the Complainant in this proceeding. This is further evidence of bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.

Based on the available record, 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 <lego-set.xyz> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Fabrizio Bedarida/
Fabrizio Bedarida
Sole Panelist
Date: December 6, 2023