{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105726", "time_of_filling": "2023-08-22 09:47:39", "domain_names": [ "arlafoodsme.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Arla Foods Amba" ], "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH", "respondent": [ "Arla Me" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

A. Complainant's Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's statements of fact can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

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, at which time the largest Danish dairy cooperative MD Foods merged with its Swedish counterpart Arla ekonomisk Förening. The Complainant reached a global revenue of EUR 11.2bn in 2021 spanning across 105 countries.<\/p>\n

The Complainant enjoys a strong online presence, as well as a widespread business in Bahrain, the country where the Respondent appears to reside.<\/p>\n

In addition to the trade marks set out in the above section 'Identification of rights', the Complainant owns numerous domain names containing the trade marks ARLA and ARLAFOODS, most notably <arla.com> (registered on 15 July 1996); and <arlafoods.com> (registered on 1 October 1999).<\/p>\n

B. Respondent's Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding, the result of which being that the Complainant's factual allegations are uncontested.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain name <arlafoodsme.com> ('the disputed domain name').<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

A. Complainant's Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

I. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name incorporates the trade mark ARLA with the addition of the descriptive terms 'foods' and 'me', the latter of which being either a generic term or an acronym for the geographic location 'Middle East'; that ARLA FOODS trade mark is incorporated entirely followed by the term 'me'; and that UDRP panels have held domain names to be confusingly similar if the entirety of a trade mark, or at least a dominant part of it, is recognisable in the domain name.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further claims that the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) <.com> is a standard registration requirement and, therefore, it should be disregarded in the assessment of confusing similarity.<\/p>\n

The Complainant therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade marks.<\/p>\n

II. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the Respondent is not affiliated with, nor authorised, endorsed or sponsored by, the Complainant in any way, nor is Respondent known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent has provided false, or at least inaccurate, contact details, which cannot amount to any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The Complainant informs that it has attempted to correspond with the Respondent via a cease-and-desist letter, which remains unanswered. The Complainant further claims that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent using the disputed domain name for legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name is being passively held and the MX server has been set up, a factor which indicates that the disputed domain name may be actively used for fraudulent email purposes.<\/p>\n

In view of the above, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name.<\/p>\n

III. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

Registration<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name was registered many years after the first registration of the Complainant's marks; that the ARLA trade mark is widely known and this has been found by previous UDRP decisions (eg Arla Foods Amba v. Nashan, CAC Case No. 101486); that the Complainant's trade marks are registered in many countries; and that the Complainant enjoys a strong online presence, including in the Middle East.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further refers to the Complainant’s trade marks being fully incorporated into the disputed domain name, and also to the use of terms 'Arla Me' which are connected with the Complainant's business name. The term 'me' may also be an acronym for 'Middle East', thereby establishing a clear reference to the Complainant’s clientele in the region. Moreover, the Complainant is also known by its range of products 'Arla Baby & Me Organic', this potentially being a further inference from the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Complainant states that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

Use <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant avers that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name in bad faith in so far as it has been passively held. The Complainant further alludes to the doctrine of passive holding to support its claim for a finding of bad faith. In doing so, the Complainant relies upon previous WIPO UDRP panels (most notably, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; and Comerica Inc. v. Horoshiy, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2004-0615), as well as paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0.<\/p>\n

In order to further support the bad faith ground, the Complainant alludes to paragraph 3.1.4 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, according to which: '[…] Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith…'.<\/p>\n

As additional indicia giving rise to a presumption of bad faith, the Complainant refers to the Respondent's failure to respond to the Complainant's cease-and-desist letter, and the Respondent's use of a privacy shield.<\/p>\n

In view of the above, the Complainant therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.   <\/p>\n

B. Respondent's Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding, the result of which being that the Complainant's submissions are uncontested.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP 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 UDRP 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 UDRP Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

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.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Gustavo Moser" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-09-27 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade marks, amongst others:<\/p>\n

• International trade mark registration no. 731917, designating, inter alia, the Kingdom of Bahrain, registered on 20 March 2000, for the mark ARLA, in classes 1, 5, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of the Nice Classification; <\/p>\n

• International trade mark registration no. 990596, designating, inter alia, the Kingdom of Bahrain, registered on 8 September 2008, for the figurative mark ARLA, in classes 1, 5, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of the Nice Classification;<\/p>\n

• EU trade mark registration no. 001520899, registered on 7 May 2001, for the word mark ARLA, in classes 1, 5, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of the Nice Classification;<\/p>\n

• EU trade mark registration no. 009012981, registered on 27 September 2010, for the figurative mark ARLA, in classes 1, 5, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of the Nice Classification; and<\/p>\n

• Danish trade mark registration no. VR200001185, registered 6 March 2000, for the mark ARLA FOODS, in classes 1, 5, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of the Nice Classification.<\/p>\n

(hereinafter, collectively or individually, the Complainant's trade marks; the ARLA trade mark and the trade mark ARLA interchangeably; and the ARLA FOODS trade mark and the trade mark ARLA FOODS interchangeably). <\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on 29 May 2023 and, at the time of writing of this decision, it does not resolve to an active website ('the Respondent’s website').<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "arlafoodsme.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }