Legomojo.com

The timeline behind legomojo.com

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

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

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION LEGO Holding A/S v. stan roble Case No. D2025-0818 1. The Parties The Complainant is LEGO Holding A/S, Denmark, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. The Respondent is stan roble, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <legomojo.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 27, 2025. On February 27, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 27, 2025, 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 (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 5, 2025, 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 March 7, 2025. 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 March 7, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 27, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 4, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Christopher J. Pibus as the sole panelist in this matter on April 10, 2025. 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 carries on business in Denmark and internationally in the field of construction toys and related products, in association with its famous LEGO trademark. The Complainant has developed a significant Internet presence through its primary website at “www.lego.com”. It owns a large portfolio of domain names, including more than 6000 which contain the LEGO trademark. The Complainant has used its LEGO-formative marks in commerce for more than 70 years and owns the following registrations among its extensive international portfolio: - LEGO, United States trademark Registration No. 1018875, dated August 26, 1975, in Class 28; and - LEGO, United Kingdom trademark Registration No. 754628, dated June 11, 1956, in Class 28. The Complainant has been active in enforcing its rights against third parties who have adopted confusingly similar domain names. In 2024 alone the Complainant successfully asserted its LEGO marks against more than 90 entities who attempted to use and register LEGO-formative domain names. The disputed domain name was registered on October 11, 2024, and although it is currently inactive, it previously resolved to a website where links incorporated in pictures of LEGO products directed users to another commercial website. The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent on November 1, 2024, to which no response was ever received. 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. Notably, the Complainant contends that its LEGO trademarks are very well-known around the world, with significant sales in more than 130 countries. The Complainant draws attention to the fact that many prior panels have recognized that its trademarks are famous and are therefore worthy of an extensive ambit of protection. In the circumstances, the Complainant requests the Panel to find deliberate targeting of the well- known mark for improper purposes. 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: page 3 (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 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. The Complainant has provided evidence of the existence of relevant trademarks, by providing proof of a number of registrations including those listed in paragraph 4 above. Detailed evidence of acquired reputation in the LEGO brand has also been provided to support the conclusion that the mark is famous. The Panel concludes that the Complainant has established that it owns sufficient rights, for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.2.1. The entirety of the LEGO mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name and 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 another term here, “mojo”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such a term 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. 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. In particular, the Complainant has presented compelling evidence of the substantial reputation it has garnered for the LEGO brand around the world, and has put forward cogent evidence and submissions that the Respondent has not been commonly known under the “Lego” name, nor has it ever been licensed or otherwise authorized to register or use the mark. 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 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 finds that the Respondent was intentionally targeting the Complainant’s famous trademark, by reproducing the entirety of the LEGO brand as the dominant first element of the disputed domain name. The Respondent was clearly aware of the LEGO trademark, as its website under the disputed domain name previously included links to images of LEGO branded products on the commercial website at “www.ebay.com”, which creates an impression of association with the Complainant. See Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Oneandone Private Registration / James Truax, WIPO Case No. D2014-1665 . The Respondent’s conduct can be readily characterized as an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, constituting bad faith under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. 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 <legomojo.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Christopher J. Pibus/ Christopher J. Pibus Sole Panelist Date: April 24, 2025

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