LEGO as the Complainant filed the dispute over the domain names legoland.com.my and legoland.my, substantiated its complaint with evidence of its fame
and its registration of variations of its LEGO mark worldwide. The Complainant showed that it was the owner of more than 100 domain names
containing the term “LEGO LAND” and among them were the local ones,
legolandmalaysia.com.my and legolandmalaysia.my.
LEGOLAND theme park was announced to be built in Malaysia was released to the public in December 2008, and the Respondent registered the domain names in dispute on 5 December 2008.
Attempts to solve this matter through a Cease and Desist letter failed. The Respondent asked for USD 2,000 for the transfer of the domain names however the Complainant disagreed and offered to reimburse the Respondent for the registration fees incurred (i.e., actual cost incurred) and USD 500 to settle amicably. When the offer was not taken, the Complainant commenced the complaint through the Domain Name Dispute Resolution.
Facts were in favour of the Complainant as not only could the Complainant prove that it owned the registered trademark to LEGOLAND but it also had legitimate rights to the mark and domain name. That the Respondent was acting in bad faith was also easily established due to the timing in which the domain names were registered, the offer to sell the domain names for a figure exceeding its out of pocket expenses, and the domain names not being used in connection with bona fide offering of goods and services.The Complainant succeeded and the domain names in dispute were transferred to the Complainant.
My opinion:
This case the Respondant is clearly a cybersquatter because he registered the domain names with the intention to sell it back to Compainant for profit.
LEGOLAND theme park was announced to be built in Malaysia was released to the public in December 2008, and the Respondent registered the domain names in dispute on 5 December 2008.
Attempts to solve this matter through a Cease and Desist letter failed. The Respondent asked for USD 2,000 for the transfer of the domain names however the Complainant disagreed and offered to reimburse the Respondent for the registration fees incurred (i.e., actual cost incurred) and USD 500 to settle amicably. When the offer was not taken, the Complainant commenced the complaint through the Domain Name Dispute Resolution.
Facts were in favour of the Complainant as not only could the Complainant prove that it owned the registered trademark to LEGOLAND but it also had legitimate rights to the mark and domain name. That the Respondent was acting in bad faith was also easily established due to the timing in which the domain names were registered, the offer to sell the domain names for a figure exceeding its out of pocket expenses, and the domain names not being used in connection with bona fide offering of goods and services.The Complainant succeeded and the domain names in dispute were transferred to the Complainant.
My opinion:
This case the Respondant is clearly a cybersquatter because he registered the domain names with the intention to sell it back to Compainant for profit.
