{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-006183",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "LEGO-bg.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Tereza Bartošková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Mette M Andersen (LEGO Juris A\/S)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Paisiy Aleksandrov (Company)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is based in Denmark and carries on a well known global business in the manufacture and sale of construction toys and other branded products both directly and through its licensees.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of a large portfolio of registered trademarks and Internet domain names more particularly described below and in particular in this case relies on its rights in CTM  LEGO  registration number 000039800 filed on 1 April 1996 registered on 5 October 1998 in respect of goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 20, 24, 25, 28, 38, 41 and 42.\r\n\r\nIn the absence of a Response, there is no information on file relating to the Respondent except that furnished in the Complaint and the information on the WhoIs database. According to the WhoIs database the disputed domain name is registered in the name of the Respondent with an address in Sofia, Bulgaria. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 30 August 2011 and expires on 31 August 2012.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was in active use at the time the Complaint was filed and the Complainant has furnished a print out of the active web site to which the disputed domain name resolved on 15 November 2011.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Complainant is obliged to prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the name or names in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national and\/or Community law (as specified and described in accordance with Paragraph B 1 (b) (9)); and, either that the disputed domain name has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; or that the disputed domain name should be considered as having been registered or being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has furnished evidence that it is the owner of the LEGO trade mark through its trade mark registrations and long established use as manufacturers and merchants of toys and other products. In particular the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that it has acquired rights that are recognised in Community law, by its ownership of CTM  LEGO  registration number 000039800 filed on 1 April 1996 registered on 5 October 1998 in respect of goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 20, 24, 25, 28, 38, 41 and 42,.\r\n\r\nHaving compared both the Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name, this Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LEGO trade mark. The word LEGO is the dominant element in the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has no other distinguishing features. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has furthermore made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The LEGO mark is a valuable asset of the Complainant. The Complainant has not licensed the Respondent to use the LEGO trade mark or to register the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nOn the evidence the Respondent registered the disputed domain name after there had been two separate findings against him in UDRP proceedings brought by the Complainant to protect its rights in the LEGO trade mark namely LEGO Juris A\/S v. pcmaniabg, Paisiy Aleksandrov WIPO Case No. D2010-1965 brought in respect of the gTLD domain name <lego-bg.com> and LEGO Juris A\/S v. pcmaniabg WIPO Case No. D2011-1055 brought in respect of the gTLD domain name <bg-lego>.com. It follows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights the LEGO trade mark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has furnished a copy of pages from the website to which the disputed domain name resolves and it is clear that the disputed domain name is actively used by the Respondent. The appearance of the website gives the impression that it is associated with the Complainant. The web pages contain images of the Complainant’s products and the Complainant’s logo is prominently displayed. There is no indication on the website that the Complainant is not associated with the website. Given that the Complainant’s LEGO trade mark is the dominant element of the disputed domain name and given Complainant’s statutory rights in its CTM registration and the strength of the Complainant’s reputation in the field of toy products, it is most improbable that the Respondent could have acquired any rights in the domain name.\r\n\r\nSimilarly, in the circumstances described by the Complainant such use of the domain name which takes predatory advantage of the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant in its LEGO trade mark, cannot be a legitimate use.\r\n\r\nSince the Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, there is an onus on the Respondent to furnish some evidence of his rights. He has failed to deliver a Response or give any explanation.\r\n\r\nIn the circumstances this Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, on the balance of probabilities, the Respondent intentionally chose and registered the disputed domain name, in full knowledge that it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LEGO trade mark. The Respondent had acquired a substantial reputation and goodwill in the LEGO trade mark prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, on the evidence the Respondent has in the past two years been the unsuccessful respondent in two UDRP cases brought by the Complainant to protect its LEGO trade mark. This Panel finds that the Respondent chose the disputed domain name because it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark in order to take predatory advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill and reputation. \r\n\r\nFurthermore having considered the evidence, this Panel finds that the intentional use of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LEGO trade mark to resolve to a website that purports to offer toys for sale, wrongfully giving the impression that the Respondent’s website is associated with the Complainant is a use in bad faith. \r\n\r\nOn the balance of probabilities, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet users, for commercial gain to the Respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name on which a right is recognized or established, by national and Community law, such likelihood arising as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location of the Respondent. It follows that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nIn the circumstances the Complainant is entitled to succeed in its application.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name LEGO-BG be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2012-02-25 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.\tDisputed domain name: LEGO-BG.EU\r\nII.\tCountry of the Complainant: Denmark, country of the Respondent: Bulgaria\r\nIII.\tDate of registration of the domain name: 30 August 2011\r\nIV.\tRights relied on by the Complainant (Art. 21 (1) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004) on which the Panel based its decision: CTM  LEGO  registration number 000039800 filed on 1 April 1996 registered on 5 October 1998 in respect of goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 20, 24, 25, 28, 38, 41 and 42.\r\n\r\nV.\tDomain name is confusingly similar to the protected rights of the Complainant\r\nVI.\tResponse submitted: No\r\nVII.\tRights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (Art. 21 (2) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n1.\tWhy the Complainant considers the Respondent to lack the rights and legitimate interests: Complainant’s rights in the LEGO trademark, the strength of the LEGO trademark, the wrongful use the confusingly similar domain name.\r\n2.\tRights or legitimate interests the Respondent claims to have: No Response was filed\r\n3.\tDoes the Panel consider the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests: No because of the strength of the Complainant’s mark and the Responsdent’s intentional registration and use of the domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.\r\nVIII.\tBad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n1.\tWhy the Complainant considers the Respondent to have registered or use the domain name\/s in bad faith: The intentional wrongful registration and use of the domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well known mark to divert Internet traffic intended for the Complainant; the fact that the Respondent has been unsuccessful respondent in similar proceedings under the UDRP in the past two years.\r\n2.\tHow the Respondent rebuts the statements of the Complainant: No Response was filed.\r\n3.\tDoes the Panel consider the Respondent to have registered or use the domain name\/s in bad faith: Yes\r\nIX.\tOther substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: None\r\nX.\tDispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name\r\nXI.\tProcedural factors the Panel considers relevant: None",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}