According to the information provided Complainant is a globally well-known company cooperatively owned by 9,900 farmers, producing and commercializing dairy products. Complainant is the fourth largest dairy company in the world, based on milk intake and the world’s largest organic dairy producer. Complainant employs over 19.000 people across 105 countries. Complainant also owns numerous domain names containing the trademark ARLA, among them: <arla.com>, <arla.eu>, <arlafoods.com>, <arlafoods.co.uk> and <arlafoods.ca>. Complainant uses these domain names to resolve to its official websites through which it informs Internet users and potential consumers about its ARLA mark and its products and services.
The disputed domain name <arllafoods.com> was registered on 28 January 2020.
The trademark registrations of Complainant have been issued prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
According to Complainant the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks as it contains the trademark ARLA in its entirety. According to Complainant it is a typosquatting situation: Complainant’s trademarks have been misspelled in the disputed domain name with two letters “l” in order to capitalized on errors (in typing or reading) made by Internet users searching for, or trying to communicate with, Complainant on the Internet.
According to Complainant Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not related in any way with the business of Complainant. According to the submission and evidence provided by Complainant the disputed domain name is used for fraudulent phishing purposes. Respondent created an email address including the disputed domain name, “ar.int@arllafoods.com”, and used it for fraudulent purposes. Respondent interfered in email correspondence between Complainant and one of its customers. Respondent intercepted an email sent by one of Complainant’s accountant employees requesting the customer to pay an invoice. By using the first name of Complainant’s employee and mimicking Complainant’s official email address “ar.int@arlafoods.com”, Respondent deceived the customer and provided bank details different from Complainant’s bank details in order to receive payment of an invoice. A few days later, Complainant and its customer realized that they were facing a fraud.
Complainant also submits that the disputed domain name has not been resolving to any active web page. It shows that the disputed domain name has not been used for any other purpose than to perpetrate a phishing scheme.
According to Complainant the disputed domain name is registered in bad faith. Given the distinctiveness of Complainant's trademark, it is reasonable to infer that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant's trademark. Further, Respondent uses the disputed domain name in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme. Complainant submits that Respondent managed to interfere in a correspondence between Complainant and its customer and used the identity of one of Complainant’s employees in order to intercept an invoice payment. The fraudulent emails were sent on 29 January 2020. Thus, the fraud happened within a very short period of time: the day after the disputed domain name was registered. These facts clearly demonstrate that Respondent did not act randomly but knew Complainant and its trademark when it undertook such fraudulent maneuver.
|