Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108426

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove that each of the following elements is present:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

1.a) <chocolatlindt.com> - The disputed domain name fully includes the Complainant's trademark. The LINDT trademark is preceded by the word "chocolat" which is clearly linked to the Complainant’s business, as it is, in fact, a well-known chocolate manufacturer. The Panel believes that the mere addition of the word "chocolat" to the verbal element LINDT is not sufficient to avoid the confusingly similarity of the disputed domain with the trademark LINDT. On the contrary, the risk of confusion is even worse in this case, as chocolate is the Complainant's core business (see, among others, Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v. vildan erdogan, CAC Case No. 101809).

1.b) <chocolindtdream.com> - The disputed domain name fully includes the Complainant's trademark. The LINDT trademark is preceded by the word "choco" which is clearly linked to the Complainant’s business and followed by the generic/laudatory word "dream". The Panel believes that the disputed domain name, combining the Complainant’s trademark with a word connected to the Complainant's business ("choco") and with the term “dream” (clearly associable to the idea that many consumers are extremely keen to try Lindt chocolate), is inherently misleading and suggests an affiliation with the Complainant that, according to the records, does not exist (see, among others, Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi v. Catal Academy SA, CAC Case No. 106030).

1.c) <frchocolatlindt.com> - The disputed domain name fully includes the Complainant's trademark.  The LINDT trademark is preceded by the geographic identifier "fr" (clearly referring to France) and by the word "chocolat" which is clearly linked to the Complainant’s business. In observing the structure of said domain name it is obvious that the elements "fr" and "chocolat" clearly and unambiguously refer to the Complainant well-known trademark.  Actually, the above terms merely indicate that LINDT chocolate is distributed in France. Hence the similarities between the LINDT trademark and the disputed domain name are striking (see, e.g., Novartis AG v Sandoz Pharmaceutical, CAC Case No. 105705).

Now, considering that the generic Top-Level Domain “.com” is obviously a mere standard registration requirement and should be disregarded when assessing whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights, the Panel's view is that the Complainant has shown that the domain names in dispute are confusingly similar to the trademark LINDT in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant, therefore, succeeds on the first element of the Policy.

2) Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make out a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name(s). Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name(s). If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. In this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s submitted evidence and allegations are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of the Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, also considering the fact that the Respondent had the chance to justify the registration and use of the disputed domain names, but failed to do so. According to the information provided by the Complainant and not contested, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names nor authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark LINDT. 

For these reasons, the Panel takes the view that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names for the purpose of the second element of the Policy.

3) The disputed domain names were registered by the Respondent on October 6, 2025, and thus more than a century since the LINDT trademark was first registered in Germany in 1906 by the Complainant. The Complainant has used the LINDT trademark worldwide and so intensively that it is impossible to believe that Respondent had no knowledge of the Complainant's trademark rights at the time of registration of the disputed domain names. Therefore, in the Panel's view, the disputed domain names <chocolatlindt.com>, <chocolindtdream.com> and <frchocolatlindt.com> were registered in bad faith. 

The Respondent used the disputed domain names to confuse internet users, by falsely associating the websites at the disputed domain names with the Complainant.

In particular, the Complainant has demonstrated that the domain names <chocolatlindt.com> and <frchocolatlindt.com> resolved to webpages promoting the sale of a large LINDT-branded chocolate calendar, using product imagery and associated indicia which created the false impression that the sites were in some manner authorised or endorsed by Lindt. In both domain names, the sites displayed what appeared to be fabricated customer reviews and listed identical contact and company details. Furthermore, the Complainant has demonstrated that the domain name <chocolindtdream.com> promoted an unrelated, heavily discounted advent calendar in connection with a different brand and that this domain name previously hosted as well the same Lindt-themed advent calendar content found on the domain names <chocolatlindt.com> and <frchocolatlindt.com>.

The Panel observes that the pattern of behavior demonstrated by the Respondent, involving the use of the disputed domain names to create misleading impressions of legitimacy and association with the Complainant, underscores a clear intent to exploit the Complainant's trademark for fraudulent purposes. Therefore, in the Panel's view, there is no evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to provide a bona fide offering of its goods and services.

The disputed domain names are now inactive. This circumstance does not prevent a finding of bad faith use. Previous panels have held that the passive holding of a domain name can be considered as use in bad faith (see WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 <telstra.org> and WIPO Case No. D2011-0421<browns.com>).

Finally, the Complainant has provided evidence that the Respondent has set up “MX-records” for the domain names <chocolatlindt.com> and <frchocolatlindt.com>. This entails that the Respondent can send e-mails through the e-mail address “@chocolatlindt.com" and "@frchocolatlindt.com". The Respondent can therefore use (or may already have used) said domain name to send fraudulent e-mails such as messages containing spam and/or phishing attempts that Internet users could well assume were sent by the Complainant. (See also Conféderation Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, Crédit Industriel et Commercial v. Khodor Dimassi, WIPO Case No. D2016-1980; Paris Saint-Germain Football v. MHP Private, WIPO Case No. D2019-0036). Albeit that there are no concrete examples of such use, it seems inconceivable that the Respondent will be able to make any good faith use of the above disputed domain names as part of an e-mail address. The Panel finds that the mere conduct of making preparation for sending e-mails which are very likely to confuse the recipient of such e-mails as to their origin, is without justification and is inconsistent with the Complainant’s exclusive rights in the LINDT trademark (see Accenture Global Services Limited v. Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC / Richa Sharma, Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2019-2453).

As a result of the above, the Panel finds that all the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant, therefore, succeeds also on the third element of the Policy.