Overview: In a textbook case of trademark enforcement under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), LEGO Holding A/S secured the transfer of the domain name <my-lego.world> from Ukrainian registrant Anton Sokolov, highlighting a powerful precedent and key lessons for domain investors.
Filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, this case (D2025-0494) is a must-read for any domain investor or brand owner navigating the intersection of trademark law and domain ownership.
The Dispute in Brief
-
Complainant: LEGO Holding A/S (Denmark), a global toy industry leader with registered trademarks in 130+ countries and ownership of 6,000+ LEGO-branded domains.
-
Respondent: Anton Sokolov (Ukraine), who registered the domain <my-lego.world> on December 26, 2024.
-
Registrar: PDR Ltd. (PublicDomainRegistry.com)
-
Decision Date: March 19, 2025
-
Panelist: Masato Dogauchi
Despite redirecting the disputed domain to LEGO’s official site (a move that might seem harmless), the registrant lacked permission—and that made all the difference.
Why LEGO Won: UDRP’s Three-Leg Test
1. Confusing Similarity
The domain name <my-lego.world> incorporated LEGO’s entire trademark. The prefix “my-” did not reduce the likelihood of confusion.
“The standing (or threshold) test… involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison.”
—WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 1.7
This element was easily met.
2. No Rights or Legitimate Interests
LEGO demonstrated that the Respondent lacked:
-
Authorization to use the LEGO trademark
-
Any known association or partnership
-
Any evidence of fair use
Since the respondent failed to file a defense, the burden shifted, and LEGO’s prima facie case stood unchallenged.
3. Bad Faith Registration and Use
Two factors sealed the deal for LEGO:
-
Prior Knowledge: Given LEGO’s global fame, the panel found it highly unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the brand.
-
Unauthorized Redirection: While the domain redirected users to LEGO’s site, it was done without consent, constituting bad faith use.
Even dormant domains, like this one now, can be reactivated anytime, giving weight to the Complainant’s concern.
Key Takeaways for Domain Investors
1. Famous Marks Are Off-Limits
Even indirect or well-meaning use (like redirecting to the actual brand) can backfire. If you’re not authorized, don’t touch domains incorporating famous trademarks.
2. “My-”, “The-”, and Other Prefix Tricks Don’t Work
Adding a prefix doesn’t dilute trademark similarity. In fact, it might even strengthen the impression of association in the eyes of UDRP panels.
3. Passive Use Doesn’t Protect You
Just because a domain isn’t “live” doesn’t mean you’re safe. Control over redirection or dormant domains still counts as active use under UDRP principles.
4. Respond or Risk Default
Sokolov’s failure to respond allowed LEGO to win uncontested. In UDRP disputes, silence can cost you your domain.
5. Respect Jurisdictional Conflicts
Despite being in a conflict zone (Ukraine), the Panel allowed proceedings to move forward. That said, domain investors in volatile regions should stay especially alert to WIPO communications to protect their rights.
Final Ruling
“The disputed domain name <my-lego.world> is ordered to be transferred to the Complainant.”
—Panelist Masato Dogauchi, March 19, 2025
Domain Success Verdict
This case is a perfect storm of what not to do. From a domain investing standpoint, it reinforces the need for due diligence, respect for IP, and understanding the power of trademarks in domain arbitration.
If you’re actively buying, selling, or holding domain assets, the LEGO case is a cautionary tale that’s just as relevant today as it was in UDRP’s early days.
Stay smart. Stay informed. Stay successful.
To your domaining success,
@AndrewHazen & @DomainSuccess
About Domain Success
At DomainSuccess.com, we equip investors, entrepreneurs, and brand owners with insights, tools, and strategies to win in the domain game. Subscribe to our newsletter for weekly case studies, expert tips, and exclusive marketplace access.
