WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION LEGO Juris A/S v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Dary Webber Case No. D2019-0204 1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama City, Panama / Dary Webber of Tangerang, Banten, Indonesia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

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

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 28, 2019. On January 28, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 28, 2019, 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 January 29, 2019, 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 January 30, 2019.

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 January 31, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 20, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 21, 2019.

The Center appointed Tobias Malte Müller as the sole panelist in this matter on February 26, 2019. 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, based in Denmark, is the owner of the LEGO trademark used in connection with the LEGO construction toys and other LEGO branded products.

The Complainant is the registered owner of numerous registered trademarks worldwide consisting of the verbal element “LEGO”, amongst which are Indonesian trademark registrations No. IDM000208750 (registered on June 26, 2009, for goods in class 28) and No. IDM000297111 (registered on March 10, 2011, for goods in class 28).

According to the Registrar’s verification response, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 27, 2018. The language of the registration agreement is English.

It is noted that the disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying sponsored links.

The Complainant contacted the Respondent with a cease and desist letter sent by email through the registrar (since no contact information of the Respondent where available) on October 25, 2018, requesting a voluntary transfer of the disputed domain name. The Complainant even offered the Respondent compensation for the expenses of registration and transfer fees (not exceeding out-of-pocket expenses). The Complainant sent a second and third notice dated November 9 and 16, 2018 but did not receive any reply. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that it has subsidiaries and branches throughout the world, and LEGO products are sold in more than 130 countries, including in Indonesia, where the Respondent is located. The Complainant further contends that its trademark LEGO is among the best-known trademarks in the world, due to decades of advertising, which prominently depicts the LEGO mark on all products, packaging, displays, advertising, and promotional materials. It results from the Complainant’s documented allegations that the list of the official top Superbrands for 2017, provided by Superbrands UK, ranks LEGO as winner in the category “Child Products - Toys and Education”. Moreover, the Reputation Institute nominated the LEGO Group as number 2 on their list of “the World’s Most Reputable Companies” (2017). Finally, TIME also announced LEGO to be the “Most Influential Toy of All Time” (2014).

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its LEGO trademark, since it is nothing but a purposeful misspelling of the Complainant’s LEGO trademark.

The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In particular, the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent to use the Complainant’s mark. According to the Complainant, the Respondent connected the disputed domain name to a parking website with sponsored links in order to generate traffic and income. Consequently, the disputed domain name is being used for commercial purposes.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. In its view, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement