The Complainant is the fifth-largest dairy company in the world and a cooperative owned by more than 12,500 dairy farmers. The Complainant was constituted in 2000, when the largest Danish dairy cooperative MD Foods merged with its Swedish counterpart Arla ekonomisk Förening. The Complainant employs 119,190 people across 105 countries and reached a global revenue of EUR 11,2 billion for the year 2021. The Complainant’s products are easily recognized by the 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 its famous brands ARLA®, LURPAK®, CASTELLO®, APETINA® and others. The Complainant has active presence in Japan, where the Respondent is located. Namely, the Complainant is operating via its entity in Japan - Arla Foods Japan and Arla Foods Ingredients, Japan K.K. (Tokyo). The Complainant also enjoys a strong online presence via its official website and social medias. Due to extensive use, advertising and revenue associated with its trademarks worldwide, the Complainant enjoys a high degree of renown around the world.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on July 26, 2022.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
i) The Complainant has rights in international trademark ARLA No. 731917, registered on March 20, 2000, designating Japan; international trademark ARLA No. 990596, registered on September 8, 2008 designating Japan; and Danish trademark ARLA FOODS No. VR 2000 01185, registered on March 6, 2000. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's ARLA mark.<\/p>\n
ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name: the Respondent is not affiliated to the Complainant in any form; the Complainant has never granted the Respondent with any rights to use the ARLA trademark in any forms, including the disputed domain name; the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; the disputed domain name has not resolved to any active page and resolved to an error page with the message “403 Forbidden”; and no response to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter coupled with the absence of use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services further demonstrate the Respondent’s absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
iii) The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith: the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights in the ARLA mark; the disputed domain name has resolved to an error page, and such a passive holding constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name; and the Respondent chose not to reply to the cease-and-desist letters sent by the Complainant which infers bad faith. <\/p>\n
RESPONDENT: <\/p>\n
No administratively compliant response has been filed. The Respondent contacted CAC administrative center with request for assistance. The Respondent was able to access and log in to the online platform but was unable to reach the case file. Case administrator provided the Respondent information how to access the case file. The Respondent did not reply to the email nor filled in the response form.<\/p>", "rights": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "
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).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
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).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "
Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Japanese, thereby making the language of the proceedings in Japanese. The Complainant has requested that the proceeding should be conducted in English. The Panel has the discretion under UDRP Rule 11(a) to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings taking the particular circumstances of the administrative proceeding into consideration. See<\/em> Section 4.5, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition; see also Lovehoney Group Limited v yan zhang, CAC 103917 (CAC August 17, 2021) (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite Japanese being designated as the required language in the registration agreement).<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name incorporates, in its second level portion, the Complainant’s ARLA trademark entirely, with the addition of the term “ltd” which is known abbreviation of a very common noun in English “limited,” and using such term in the second level portion of the domain name shows that the Respondent understands English and has intended, by registering such domain name, to target English speaking Internet users; (ii) the Complainant is a global company, originally founded in Denmark, having its website at <\/span>“arla.com” displayed in the English language, and it appears that the Respondent is located in Japan, and the English language, being commonly used internationally, would be considered as neutral for both parties in the present case, and thus it would be fair to the parties that the language of the present proceeding be English; and (iii) a translation of the complaint in Japanese would entail significant additional costs for the Complainant and delay in the proceedings. <\/p>\n Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive argument has been adduced by the Complainant. After considering the circumstance of the present case, in the absence of the Response, Respondent´s communication in English via email and no objection to the Complainant's request for the language of proceeding, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.<\/p>\n The Panel is satisfied that all other procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Mr. Ho-Hyun Nahm Esq."
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-01-02 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for ARLA such as but not limited to: <\/p>\n - International trademark ARLA No. 731917, registered on March 20, 2000, designating Japan;<\/p>\n - International trademark ARLA (with a device) No. 990596, registered on September 8, 2008, designating Japan; and<\/p>\n - Danish trademark ARLA FOODS No. VR 2000 01185, registered on March 6, 2000.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"arla-ltd.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}