Westmore · UDRP DecisionLegolandwaterpark.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <legolandwaterpark.com> after finding all three UDRP elements satisfied. The domain incorporated the LEGOLAND mark as its first and dominant element together with the descriptive term “waterpark.” The Respondent was neither authorized nor licensed to use the marks and used the domain for a monetized click-through website linking to third-party sites. Given the worldwide reputation of LEGO and LEGOLAND, the Panel found that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s rights and intentionally sought to attract users for monetary gain under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The timeline behind legolandwaterpark.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind legolandwaterpark.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a straightforward UDRP application where a well-known mark is combined with a descriptive term connected to the mark owner’s licensed activities and used for monetized links. The term “waterpark” did not reduce similarity; in context, it reinforced an apparent connection with LEGOLAND attractions. The click-through use, lack of authorization, substantial trademark reputation, and absence of rebuttal collectively supported transfer.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION LEGO Juris A/S v. Domain Admin, Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft/ Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org Case No. D2014-1249 1. The Parties The Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S of Billund, Denmark, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Domain Admin, Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft of Kingstown, Saint Vincent And The Grenadines Kingstown / Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org of Nobby Beach, Queensland, Australia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <legolandwaterpark.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 22, 2014. On July 22, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 23, 2014, 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 July 29, 2014, 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 July 29, 2014. The Center verified that the Complaint together with 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 July 30, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 19, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 20, 2014. The Center appointed Christopher J. Pibus as the sole panelist in this matter on August 29, 2014. 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 is the owner of the trademarks LEGO and LEGOLAND around the world, including the following registrations: Australian Registration No. A 360.433 for LEGOLAND Canadian Registration No. TMA 328,486 for LEGOLAND United States of America Registration No. 1,344,008 for LEGOLAND United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Registration No. 950,465 for LEGOLAND New Zealand Registration No. 104,424 for LEGOLAND Austrian Registration No. 96.339 for LEGOLAND Chinese Registration No. 257.147 for LEGOLAND German Registration No. CTM 54205 for LEGOLAND Hong Kong, China Registration No. 492/1974 for LEGOLAND Japanese Registration No. 1.155.550 for LEGOLAND The Complainant is in the business of manufacturing and selling LEGO branded toys. The Complainant has subsidiaries and branches throughout the world, and LEGO branded products are sold in more than 130 countries, including Australia. The Complainant owns over 2,400 domain names containing the term “lego”. The Complainant has extensively advertised and promoted the LEGO trademark on all products, packaging, displays, advertising and promotional materials. The Complainant has licensed Merlin Entertainment to use the trademark LEGOLAND in association with theme parks, hotels, entertainment, sporting and cultural activities. The Complainant’s licensee’s LEGOLAND parks have approximately 1.4 million visitors per year. The disputed domain name was registered on January 7, 2010, and at the time the Complaint was filed reverted to a website that provide links to third party websites. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant submits that it owns many trademark registrations for the trademark LEGO around the world, including the following Registrations: Australian Registration No. A 360.433 for LEGOLAND Canadian Registration No. TMA 328,486 for LEGOLAND United States of America Registration No. 1,344,008 for LEGOLAND United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Registration No. 950,465 for LEGOLAND New Zealand Registration No. 104,424 for LEGOLAND Austrian Registration No. 96.339 for LEGOLAND Chinese Registration No. 257.147 for LEGOLAND German Registration No. CTM 54205 for LEGOLAND Hong Kong, China Registration No. 492/1974 for LEGOLAND Japanese Registration No. 1.155.550 for LEGOLAND The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <legolandwaterpark.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks LEGO and LEGOLAND. The addition of the term “waterpark” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s famous LEGO and LEGOLAND trademarks. In fact, the descriptive term “waterpark” add to the confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks. Rights and Legitimate interests The Complainant contends that the Respondent was never authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s LEGO and LEGOLAND trademarks. The Respondent is not commonly known by the “lego” name. The Complainant submits that the use of a famous confusingly similar trademark in association with a website that provides links to third party websites for the purposes of monetary gain does not demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods and services. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s famous LEGO and LEGOLAND trademarks. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name to interfere with the Complainant’s business and is attempting to trade on the goodwill of the Complainant’s reputation. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name in association with a website that provides links to third party websites for purposes of monetary gain. The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s offer to compensate the Respondent for out-of-pocket expenses for the registration and transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements: (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (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 The Panel finds that the Complainant owns registered trademark rights in the LEGO and LEGOLAND trademarks by virtue of the trademark registrations listed in section 4 above. The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name <legolandwaterpark.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks LEGO and LEGOLAND. The disputed domain name contains as a first and dominant element the Complainants’ trademark LEGOLAND, combined with the descriptive term “waterpark”. The addition of the term “waterpark” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name, rather it suggests the type of services or products provided. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds, on the evidence filed, that the Complainant’s trademarks have a substantial reputation worldwide, and as such the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights in the LEGO and LEGOLAND trademarks. The Respondent was never authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name reverts to a website that provides links to third party websites for purposes of monetary gain, and in the absence of any response, the Panel concludes that the Respondent does not hold any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel concludes that due to the worldwide reputation of the LEGO trademark and products, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademarks when it registered and used the disputed domain name. The Respondent clearly intended to attract users to its website through the unauthorized use of the famous LEGO and LEGOLAND trademarks as the primary element of its domain name. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name in associated with a website which provides links to third party sites in what is commonly called a “click through site”, for purposes of monetary gain. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith as per paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iIi) 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 <legolandwaterpark.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Christopher J. Pibus Sole Panelist Date: September 10, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around legolandwaterpark.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.