WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION LEGO Juris A/S v. Steven McCracken, Funky Lemon Web Ltd Case No. D2018-1676 1. The Parties

The Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S of Billund, Denmark, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Steven McCracken, Funky Lemon Web Ltd of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 25, 2018. On July 25, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 25, 2018, 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 26, 2018 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 July 30, 2018. On the same date, the Respondent sent an email communication to the Center. On July 31, 2018, the Center sent the Parties an email regarding possible settlement.

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 August 10, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 30, 2018. The Center received informal email communications from the Respondent on July 30, 2018, on August 11, 2018, on August 13, 2018, on August 19, 2018, on August 21, 2018, on September 3, 2018, and on September 5, 2018. On August 21, 2018, the Complainant informed the Center that would continue with the proceedings. The Respondent did not submit a formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties that would proceed to panel appointment on September 4, 2018.

The Center appointed Taras Kyslyy as the sole panelist in this matter on September 13, 2018. 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 based in Denmark. It is the owner of the LEGO brand used in connection with construction toys and other LEGO branded products. The Complainant’s licensees are authorized to exploit the Complainant’s intellectual property rights, including its trademark rights. The Complainant has subsidiaries and branches throughout the world, and LEGO products are sold in more than 130 countries. The LEGO group has expanded its use of the LEGO trademark to computer hardware and software, books, videos and computer controlled robotic construction sets. The Complainant is the owner of over 5,000 domain names containing the term LEGO.

The Complainant owns numerous registrations worldwide for the trademark LEGO, the earliest registration dating from 1954 (Danish Reg. No. VR 1954 00604, registered on May 1, 1954). LEGO is a well-known trademark.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 1, 2018 and is used for a website offering LEGO toys.

The Complainant addressed the Respondent with three cease and desist letters regarding the disputed domain name, however, the Respondent never replied. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. Dominant part of the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LEGO trademark. The addition of the suffix “builda” will not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant part of the name, LEGO, recognizable as a world famous trademark. Addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name. The use of the disputed domain name contributes to the confusion.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. No license or any other authorization was issued by the Complainant to the Respondent to use LEGO trademark. LEGO is a famous trademark, and it is highly unlikely that the Respondent did not know of the Complainant’s respective trademark rights when registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent has intentionally chosen a domain name based on the Complainant’s well-known trademark in order to generate traffic and income through a website which offers or attempts to sell the Complainant’s products.

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. LEGO is a well-known trademark. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes a disruption of the Complainant’s business and qualifies as bad faith registration. The Respondent ignored the Complainant’s cease and d