Edited Case Summary for the DL-202e :

LEGO Juris A/S , Plaintiff,

-againstDomain Administrator, Matthew Griffith,
Defendant

A. Title: LEGO Juris A/S, Plaintiff, -against-, Domain Administrator, Matthew Griffith
Defendant
B. Significance of the Case: The case shows that the respondent has rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that it hasnt registered the
domain name in bad faith.
C. History of the Case: The disputed domain name is <legoworkshop.com> as a noncommercial fan site.
1. The Complainant is the owner of the LEGO and associated brands used in
relation to construction toys and other related products. It started using the LEGO
mark in the United States in 1953. It has a number of registered trademarks for, and
comprising of, the word LEGO in many jurisdictions, including the United States and
Europe.
The Complainant uses the domain name <lego.com> as its official website as
follows:

page 2

2. The Respondent registered the domain name <LEGOworkshop.com> in 2011.

3. The Complainant wrote to the Respondent requesting that the Respondent
transfer the disputed domain name to it, upon payment of the necessary costs involved.
But there was no response from the Respondent. Accordingly, the Complainant filed a
complaint to WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.
4. According to the UDRP, the Complainant must prove the elements set out in
paragraph 4(a) of the Policy as follows:
(i) Respondent's Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark
or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the Domain
Name; and
(iii) Respondent's Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad
faith.
5. The Complainant argues that the Respondent (i) has no rights in the trademark
LEGO corresponding to the domain name in dispute; (ii) has no business connection or
license from the Complainant to use the Lego name, and that no legitimate right or
interest in the disputed domain name; (iii) has intentionally chosen a domain name
based on a registered trade mark in order to generate traffic to a website displaying
sponsored links both related and unrelated to the Complainant.
6. The Respondent defends that he registered the domain name
<legoworkshop.com> for his son to show off his sons creations in the website.
Accordingly, it is considered as a fair use of the domain name.
The following is the website Respondent with the message:

page 3

Welcome to legoworkshop! My name is Gavin. My brother Grayson (age11) and I

(age 15) and are running this website for the fun of being able to show the world our
creations. I attend Middle College for high school. Middle College is a program where
you can enroll in a state college to attend high school. Less than 40 kids are accepted
each year at each college with hundreds being turned away. We have to do a project
that we start on in 10th grade and work on through 12th grade that is part of our
graduation requirements. My brother Grayson, who is in 5th grade, is doing this site
with me. I am not affiliated with LEGO in any way nor is this site. My brother and I
simply love their products and want to feature the things weve built and show how to
build some of the things that weve built.
I just found out that LEGO Group, the company that my brother and I love, is trying to
take this site away from us. So by saving it I Have had to rush and get pictures of the
model so I had built so far and get the website running. Please contact Sandra Looft
who represents LEGO Group at sandra.looft@ melbourneitdbs.com and ask them to
stop bullying two kids who are merely trying to promote their product. It is clear that our
site is not owned or supported by LEGO Group which by my understanding means we
are not infringing on their trademark.
7. The administrative panel, under UDRP, finds that (1) the addition of the
descriptive suffix workshop does little to dispel the likelihood of confusing similarity
arising; (2) the Complainant, fails to establish that the Respondent has no legitimate
interests in the domain; (3) LEGOs showing is inadequate to indicate that the
Respondent has any bad faith in registering the domain name. Accordingly, the
Complaint is denied.
D. Self Assessment Question:

page 4

1. What do you think would be the outcome of the case if the Respondent had
registered the domain name at issue and then decided to offer it for sale to the
Complainant?
2. What do you think would be the outcome of the case if the Respondent had
registered the domain name at issue and decided to sell it to the Complainant at a price
considerably exceeding the costs involved when the Complainant asked him to transfer
the domain name to it after it paid the costs involved?
3. What do you think would be the outcome of the case if the domain name
involved was not LEGOWORKSHOP but rather TEGOWORKSHOP?

****************************