.IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) Decision
LEGO Juris A/s v. Peter Chang
INDRP Case no: INDRP/301
Disputed Domain Name: www.legoland.in
Arbitrator: Mr. D.SARAVANAN
Year: 2011
Complainant: LEGO Juris A/s, Koldingvej 2, 7190, Billund, Dermark
Respondent: Peter Chang, 8 Fordham Rd Lewes East Sussex, BN8 6FL GP.
Response: None, Ex-parte Order
Decision: Transfer of domain name
Costs: None
Facts of the Case:
Complainant LEGO Juris A/S is the proprietor of the Trademark LEGO and more similar trademarks utilized in reference to the well-known LEGO model of toys and different LEGO branded merchandise which incorporates the trademark LEGOLAND. Complainant and its licensees, via their predecessors, started using the LEGO mark within the U.S. in 1953, to establish building toys made and offered by them. Their use of the LEGO mark has been unique, continuous and extensive since 1953. Over the years, the business of promoting LEGO branded toys has grown remarkably… its world market share rose from 4.8% at the end of 2009 to approx. 5.9% on the finish of 2010. The Complainant has subsidiaries and branches globally, and LEGO merchandise are offered in 130 or more international locations, in addition to India.
The Complainant owns more than 1000 domain names containing the mark/trademark LEGO and LEGOLAND. The trademark LEGO is among the most well recognized trademarks globally, due to extensive advertising since 1950s, which prominently depicts the LEGO mark on all merchandise, packaging, shows and promotional supplies, in addition t Advertising. Indeed, the LEGO trademark and model have been acknowledged as being well-known. The LEGO Group maintains extensive Web websites underneath the domain names LEGO.com and LEGOLAND.com.
Discussion & Findings
(i) Identical or confusing similarity:
The Arbitral Tribunal finds that the Complainant has supplied evidences that it possesses registered Trade / Service Marks “LEGO” and “LEGOLAND” in varied international locations all through the world together with India.
(ii) Legitimate Interests:
The Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights and legitimate curiosity and the Respondent has did not rebut the presumption of absence of rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent has not filed any response on deserves of the grievance to ascertain any circumstances that would help it in demonstrating, any rights or legitimate interests within the disputed domain identify.
(iii) Bad Faith:
The Respondent has deliberately tried to draw, for industrial acquire, web customers to the Respondent’s website online or different on-line areas, by making a chance of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the supply, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web site or location or of a services or products on the Respondent’s website online or location.
This Arbitral Tribunal concludes that Respondent’s objective of registering the domain identify was in bad faith throughout the which means of the Policy. The Respondent has no legitimate rights or pursuits within the disputed domain identify and there was no actual objective for registering the disputed domain identify aside from for industrial features.
Award:
In accordance with .IN Dispute Resolution Policy, the Arbitral Tribunal orders that the disputed domain name <legoland.in> be transferred to the Complainant.
Read the Complete Decision < href=”#”>here</a>
Leave a Reply