Westmore · UDRP decision
WIPO · Case No. D2015-1310

Legostarwars.xyz

TransferWIPO-indexed · informational, not legal advice

The Panel ordered transfer of <legostarwars.xyz>. It found the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant's LEGO trademark because it wholly incorporated LEGO and added STAR WARS, a term specifically associated with the Complainant's licensed product line. The Respondent lacked authorization and presented no evidence of rights, legitimate interests, bona fide use, or fair use. Bad faith was established from the Respondent's knowledge of the famous LEGO mark, selection of a domain combining LEGO with the related STAR WARS term, and commercial redirection of users to eBay offerings involving multiple brands.

Outcome
Transfer
At a glance
Provider
WIPO
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2015-09-28
Panelist(s)
Colombo, Nicoletta
Complainant
LEGO Juris A/S
Respondent
Tanesha Chio
Counsel
CSC Digital Brand Services AB
Disputed domain(s)
legostarwars.xyz
Citation weightrelies on 6 authorities
Domain history UDRP Intelligence

The timeline behind legostarwars.xyz

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Reconstructing the record for legostarwars.xyz…
Verified public record
Outcome & remedy
Complaint granted. Panel ordered transfer of legostarwars.xyz.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
No RDNH raised.
Westmore Insight

The decision illustrates that adding a second trademark or brand term does not avoid confusing similarity where that added term is closely associated with the complainant's licensed product line. Here, the LEGO and STAR WARS combination strengthened the apparent connection to the Complainant. The case also links third-party marketplace redirection with bad faith where the domain targets a famous mark and is used commercially.

The three-part test
Identical or Confusingly SimilarMet
Rights or Legitimate InterestsMet
Registered and Used in Bad FaithMet

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

Related decisions
Case details
Provider
WIPO
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2015-09-28
Panel
Colombo, Nicoletta
Full decision
9 min read · hosted by Westmore

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION LEGO Juris A/S v. Tanesha Chio Case No. D2015-1310 1. The Parties The Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S of Billund, Denmark, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Tanesha Chio of Jefferson, Alabama, United States of America (the "USA"). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <legostarwars.xyz> (the "Domain Name") 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 28, 2015. On July 29, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 30, 3015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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 August 6, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 26, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on August 27, 2015. The Center appointed Nicoletta Colombo as the sole panelist in this matter on September 14, 2015. 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 famous trademark LEGO for construction toys and all other trademarks used in connection with it. It is also licensee of the trademark STAR WARS. The Complainant has subsidiaries and branches throughout the world, and LEGO products are sold in more than 130 countries, including in the USA. Moreover, the Complainant is the owner of more than 4,300 domain names containing the term "lego", including for example: <lego-star-wars.net>, <lego-star-wars.org>, <lego-star-wors.de>, <lego-starwars.com>, <lego-starwars.eu>, <lego-starwars.us>, <lego-starwarsshop.com>, <lego-starwars.de> and <lego-starwors.de>. The trademark LEGO is among the best-known trademarks in the world. In the official top 500 Superbrands for 2015 list, provided by Superbrands UK, LEGO is shown as winner in the category "Child Products - Toys and Education". Moreover, the Reputation Institute nominated the LEGO Group as number 10 on its list of "the World's Most Reputable Companies" in 2014. The Respondent registered the Domain Name on February 11, 2015. The website is active and directs Internet users to another commercial website, namely "www.ebay.com", offering various products from a wide range of different brands, besides the Complainant's products. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends the following: a.) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the prior trademark of the Complainant because: - it reproduces the Complainant's trademark in its entirety; - the adjunction of the trademark STAR WARS, for which the Complainant has signed a license agreement with Lucasfilms Ltd. does not detract from the overall impression. In fact, the addition of said trademark is rather fitted to create an impression that the Domain Name is associated with the Complainant as it holds licenses to develop, manufacture and sell LEGO Star Wars products as part of a partnership with Lucasfilm Ltd.; - the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") "xyz" does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant portion of the Domain Name and is therefore irrelevant to determine similarity between the trademark and the Domain Name. b.) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name because: - the Complainant has not found that the Respondent has any registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the Domain Name. Neither has the Complainant found anything, including the WhoIs details, that would suggest that the Respondent has been using LEGO in any other way that would give them any legitimate rights in the name; - the Complainant has never given to the Respondent any license or authorization to use LEGO trademark, nor is it an authorized dealer; - the Respondent is not using the name LEGO as a company name or has any other legal rights in the name, it is quite clear that the Respondent is simply trying to sponge off the Complainant's world famous trademark. c.) The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because: - the Respondent could not ignore the strong notoriety and world renown of the Complainant's trademark when it registered the Domain Name; it is unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant's rights in the LEGO brand at the time of the registration of the Domain Name; - the Complainant tried to settle the matter amicably sending a cease and desist letter to the Respondent by postal mail and email, without receiving any answer; - the Respondent is not using the Domain Name in a bona fide manner; the Respondent has intentionally chosen the Domain Name based on the registered trademark in order to generate traffic and income through a website that is commercial through links incorporated in pictures of the Complainant's LEGO products directing Internet users to another commercial website, namely "www.ebay.com", offering various products from a wide range of different brands, besides the Complainant's products. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has trademark registrations for LEGO all over the world and has signed a license agreement with Lucasfilm Ltd. for the trademark STARWARS. Therefore, it has been proven that the Complainant has rights in the LEGO and STARWARS trademarks. The Domain Name <legostarwars.xyz> incorporates LEGO which constitutes the Complainant's trademark. Moreover, it incorporates also the trademark STARWARS owned by Lucasfilms Ltd. for which the Complainant claims to have a license agreement concerning the use of the trademark STAR WARS incorporated in the LEGO product line 1 . The Panel finds that the combination of the Complainant's trademark with the trademark STAR WARS does not render the Domain Name dissimilar to the trademark of the Complainant, on the contrary, it increases the confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's trademark. In fact, the term "star wars" specifically relates to the Complainant's product line. There are several UDRP decisions stating that confusing similarity, for the purposes of the Policy, is established when a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant's mark even if it is added to another trademark. In particular, there are UDRP decisions stating that the incorporation of both trademarks LEGO and STARWARS in a domain name is misleading and confusingly similar to the trademark LEGO ( LEGO Juris A/S v. Devin Steenberg , WIPO Case No. D2015-0394 ,; LEGO Juris A/S v. Saputro Wijayanto, WIPO Case No. D2013-0916 ; LEGO Juris A/S v. Miguel Angel Villen / PrivacyGuardian.org, WIPO Case No. D2013-0479 ; LEGO Juris A/S v. Julius Oconnell , WIPO Case No. D2013-0108 ; and LEGO Juris A/S, v. Lego Star Wars Minifigs, WIPO Case No. D2011-1231 ). Additionally, the Panel does not typically consider, when analyzing the identity or similarity, the gTLD suffix – in this case ".xyz" – because it is a necessary component of the disputed domain name and does not give any distinctiveness (see, i.e. , Crédit Industriel et Commercial SA v. Name Privacy , WIPO Case No. D2005-0457 ). Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent has not filed any response in this case. There is prima facie indication in the evidence provided to the Panel that there are no rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent in the Domain Name or has made preparations to use it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or that it intends to make a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, see paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Specifically, on the basis of the evidence filed before the Panel, the Respondent has not received any license or authorization from the Complainant to use the famous trademark LEGO, nor has it been authorized to register and use the Domain Name. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Domain Name is exploited by the Respondent to generate traffic and income by re-directing Internet users to another commercial website, namely "www.ebay.com", offering various products from a wide range of different brands, besides the Complainant's products. The Respondent must have been aware of the existence of the LEGO marks and the Complainant's Lego Starwars products. In all likelihood, only someone who was familiar with the Complainant's marks would have registered a domain name inclusive of such mark. The Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name with the intent to profit from the reputation of the famous trademark of the Complainant by choosing a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark. Taken together with the fact that the Respondent has not filed any Response in this proceeding in support of any good faith registration or use, the Panel believes that the Complainant has demonstrated that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Domain Name <legostarwars.xyz> be transferred to the Complainant. Nicoletta Colombo Sole Panelist Date: September 28, 2015 1 The Complainant has filed as evidence a letter signed by the "Director, General Counsel", stating that "This is to confirm that that the LEGO Group has a license with Lucasfilms Ltd. regarding the development, manufacturing and sale of LEGO Star Wars products" (Annex 14 of the Complaint).

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.

Beyond the decision

What Westmore sees around legostarwars.xyz

The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.

Connected to Westmore UDRP Intelligence
116,051 decisions · citations · panelists · parties · domain history
Eleanor · UDRP intelligence
Ask Eleanor about this decision
Ask Eleanor about this decision

A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.

Unlocking Eleanor for this case uses 1 of your complimentary Intelligence unlocks· 3 remaining

Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.

Westmore Professional · Unlock the intelligence

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.

Citation Intelligence
How this decision is cited and treated across the corpus.
Panelist Intelligence
The panel's tendencies, outcomes and reasoning patterns.
Domain History
Ownership chronology — creation vs. respondent acquisition.
Opposing-Party Research
Complainant, counsel and portfolio context.
Independent Case Review
Eleanor challenges your filing before the other side does.
Professional Matters
Open, research and manage matters end to end.
$395/month
Unlock Westmore Professional Annual & firm seats available · cancel anytime
Take the next step
Westmore UDRP · find the right service

Westmore 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.

Essential cookies only. Nothing is sold or shared.