Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107833

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant owns numerous word and device trade marks consisting of the name ARLA in multiple classes and numerous countries around the world, including the International trade mark ARLA, registration number 731917, designating the United States, first registered on 20 March 2000 in international classes 01, 05, 29, 30, 31, and 32; the International trade mark ARLA, registration number 990596, designating the United States, first registered on 8 September 2008 in international classes 01, 05, 29, 30, 31 and 32; and the EU trade mark ARLA, registration number 001520899, first registered on 7 May 2001, in international classes 1, 5, 29, and 30-32. The Complainant’s trade mark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, the Complainant owns multiple domain names consisting of the name ARLA, including <arla.com>, registered on 15 July 1996; and <arla.eu>, registered on 1 June 2006, which are all connected to the Complainant's official websites through which it informs Internet users and consumers about its products and services.

Arla Foods is the fifth-largest dairy company in the world and a cooperative owned by more than 12,500 dairy farmers. Arla Foods Amba was constituted in 2000, when the largest Danish dairy cooperative MD Foods merged with its Swedish counterpart Arla ekonomisk Förening. Arla Foods Amba employs around 21,985 full-time employees and reached a global revenue of EUR 13,8 billion for the year 2024. The Complainant enjoys a strong presence globally via its official website and social media accounts.

The Complainant submits that Arla Food’s products are easily recognized by consumers all over the world due to the significant investments of the company in promoting its products and brands and offering high quality products. It sells its milk-based products under the brand names ARLA®, LURPAK®, CASTELLO®, APETINA®, and others.

The disputed domain name <arlalogistics.org> was first registered on 6 November 2024. The disputed domain name currently resolves to an inactive error page. There is no evidence before the Panel that the disputed domain name has ever been used for an active website since it was registered.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

With regard to the first UDRP element, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark ARLA. Indeed, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trade mark in its entirety but adds the generic term "logistics” as a suffix to the Complainant's trade mark. The Panel follows in this respect the view established by numerous other decisions that a domain name which wholly incorporates a complainant's registered trade mark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purposes of the UDRP (see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin <porsche-autoparts.com>). The Panel further considers it to be well established that the addition of a generic or descriptive term does not allow a domain name to avoid confusing similarity with a trade mark (see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2019-2294, Qantas Airways Limited v. Quality Ads <qantaslink.com>; and CAC Case No. 102137, Novartis AG v. Black Roses <novartiscorp.com>). Other panels have previously found that “[W]here the relevant trademark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element” (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8; and, for example, WIPO Case No. D2023-2542, Merryvale Limited v. tao tao <wwbetway.com>; and WIPO Case No. D2020-0528, Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Rich Ardtea <global-iqos.com>). Against this background, the Panel finds that the addition of the generic term "logistics” is not sufficient to alter the overall impression of the designations as being connected with the Complainant's trade mark and does not prevent a likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trade mark and associated domain names. To the contrary, the disputed domain name rather adds to the likelihood of confusion because the addition of the generic term "logistics”, in conjunction with the Complainant's trade mark ARLA, suggests that the disputed domain name links to an official website of the Complainant concerned with its logistics operations, and implies that it is linked to the Complainant and its business.

With regard to the second UDRP element, there is no evidence before the Panel to suggest that the Respondent has made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Neither is there any indication that the Respondent is making legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Indeed, the disputed domain name is not being used for any active website but resolves to an inactive error page.  A lack of content at the disputed domain has in itself been regarded by other panels as supporting a finding that the respondent lacked a bona fide offering of goods or services and did not make legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name (see, for example, Forum Case No. FA 1773444, Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc v. Joannet Macket/JM Consultants). The Panel further finds that the Respondent is not affiliated with or related to the Complainant in any way and is neither licensed nor otherwise authorised to make any use of the Complainant’s trade mark or to apply for or use the disputed domain name. Additionally, the Whois information for the disputed domain name does not suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name <arlalogistics.org>. Past panels have held that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name, as is equally not the case here (see, for example, Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston / Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com> (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston / Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy paragraph4(c)(ii).”)). Finally, the Respondent failed to respond to the cease-and-desist letter sent by the Complainant and to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name in response. Against this background, and absent any response from the Respondent, or any other information indicating the contrary, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

With regard to the third UDRP element, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent either knew, or should have known, that the disputed domain name would be confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark, and that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in full knowledge of the Complainant's trade mark. Indeed, if the Respondent had carried out a Google search for the term “Arla Logistics”, the search results would have yielded immediate results related to the Complainant, its websites, and its connected business and services. The Panel considers it likely that the disputed domain name would not have been registered if it were not for the Complainant's trade mark (see, for example, WIPO Case No D2004-0673 Ferrari Spa v. American Entertainment Group Inc <ferrariowner.com>). Numerous other UDRP decisions have taken the view, which this Panel shares, that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party’s trade mark rights may in itself be regarded as evidence of bad faith registration and use (see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows; and WIPO Case No. D2004-0615, Comerica Inc. v. Horoshiy, Inc.). The Panel notes in this connection, first, as mentioned above, that the Respondents failed to respond to the cease-and-desist letter sent by the Complainant, which further supports an inference of bad faith (see, for example, WIPO case No. D2016-1695 International Business Machines Corporation v. Adam Stevenson, Global Domain Services <ibmresearchgroup.com>; and WIPO Case No. D2018-2201 Carrefour v. PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC / Milen Radumilo <supermercadocarrefour.com>); and secondly, that it is difficult to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate on the grounds that it would constitute passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trade mark law under circumstances where the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark used by the latter in conjunction with its goods and services.  Absent any response from the Respondent, or any other information indicating the contrary, the Panel therefore also accepts that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.