WIPO D2023-4950 · decided 6 February 2024
LEGO Juris A/S v. Oleg Budak
The parties
- Complainant
- LEGO Juris A/S
- Respondent
- Oleg Budak
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found лего.site identical to the ЛЕГО trademark, Russian Federation Registration No. 74727, because the Cyrillic domain name reproduces it in full and the ".site" ending is disregarded. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel found Oleg Budak had no rights or legitimate interests, because the domain name earlier pointed to a site selling third-party products and its composition carries a high risk of implied affiliation. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found bad faith because the well-known LEGO and ЛЕГО trademarks long predate the domain name, the earlier site sought commercial gain, and passive holding did not prevent the finding. |
Why does LEGO in Cyrillic matter for a complaint today?
LEGO Juris A/S, the Danish owner of the LEGO trademark, also owns the trademark in Cyrillic. Its Russian Federation Trademark No. 74727 for the word ЛЕГО was registered on January 30, 1984. On October 12, 2023, Oleg Budak, listed in the Russian Federation, registered лего.site. The decision records its Punycode form as xn--c1adro.site. The site first sold electronic products not associated with LEGO, then went inactive. The panelist, Alissia Shchichka, is proficient in English and Russian and ran the case in English. She found the domain name identical to the ЛЕГО trademark and ordered the transfer on February 6, 2024. If your customers read Cyrillic, they may type your brand in Cyrillic too. Because LEGO Juris A/S had registered the Cyrillic form, the first element was a simple comparison with a registered trademark. A brand owner without a Cyrillic registration would rely on section 1.14 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. It says a transliterated domain name will normally be found identical or confusingly similar where the trademark is recognizable through the transliteration.
What does the WIPO Overview 3.1 say?
The WIPO Overview 3.1 summarises how WIPO panels decide each issue. These sections cover the same point of law.
- Section 1.11: Is the Top Level Domain relevant in determining identity or confusing similarity?
- Section 1.14: Is a domain name that consists or is comprised of a translation or transliteration of a trademark identical or confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark?
- Section 3.3: Can the "passive holding" of a domain name support a finding of bad faith?
Who decided the case?
A single panelist, Alissia Shchichka, decided the case on 6 February 2024.
Read the decision
The full text is published by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. We summarise it here; the decision itself is the authority.
Summarised by Gergana Dimitrova. Checked against the published decision on 23 October 2026.
Someone has taken a domain that uses your brand?
The first assessment is free and comes back within 24 hours. If the case is weak we say so rather than take the fee.