{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107071", "time_of_filling": "2024-11-19 16:19:01", "domain_names": [ "lindtchocolatebliss.shop" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG" ], "complainant_representative": "SILKA AB", "respondent": [ "BergeronRichard" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

The Complainant, founded in 1845, is a well-known chocolate maker based in Switzerland, consistently featured in lists collating the largest and most popular chocolate brands\/manufacturers in the world. The Complainant has a strong social media presence with, for example, seven million followers on Facebook (facebook.com\/Lindt), more than 160 thousand followers on Instagram (www.instagram.com\/lindt\/), and over 130 thousand followers on LinkedIn (https:\/\/ch.linkedin.com\/company\/lindt-&-sprungli).<\/p>\n

In the past, the Complainant filed complaints against domain names involving their “LINDT“ brand and has been successful (e.g. Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v. Dirk Zagers, CAC-UDRP-106852 (2024; Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v. gabriel araujo, CAC-UDRP-106723 (2024); Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v. Gilberto Lopes Teixeira Da Silva (Fox Intermediacoes Ltda), CAC-UDRP-106611 (2024); Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v. ARJONES NEGOCIOS LTDA, CAC-UDRP-106521 (2024); Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v. Gabriel Schmidt, CAC-UDRP-106520 (2024)).<\/p>\n

The Complainant owns “LINDT” numbered 91037 in Germany, “LINDT” numbered 87306 in the United States of America, “LINDT” numbered UCA26258 in Canada, the International trademark “LINDT” numbered 217838 with the registration date of 12.03.1959, “LINDT” numbered 2P-349150 in Switzerland, International trademark “LINDT” numbered 622189, “LINDT” numbered 704669 in Australia, “LINDT” numbered 000134007 in the European Union, and the International trademark “LINDT” numbered 936939.<\/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

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <lindtchocolatebliss.shop> is confusingly similar to its “LINDT“ trademarks covering many jurisdictions, as the Complainant’s trademark “LINDT“ trademark is reproduced identically within the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the addition of “Chocolate” and “Bliss” term in the dispute domain name would not prevent a finding of confusingly similarity (e.g. Canva Pty Ltd v. Cliff Smith \/ Maurice G Summers, WIPO Case No. D2023-1121; Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v. qin shu, CAC-UDRP-106890 (2024)).<\/p>\n

Moreover, the Complainant requests the “.shop“ extension in the disputed domain name to be disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1 ; Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v. qin shu, CAC-UDRP-106890 (2024)).

<\/p>\n

NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <lindtchocolatebliss.shop>, since the Respondent does not  have trademark rights for, nor is it commonly known by, ‘lindtchocolatebliss’ or any similar term. Moreover, the Respondent is not connected to nor affiliated with the Complainant and has not received license or consent to use the LINDT mark in any way.<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has not used, nor prepared to use, the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. In this regard, the domain name resolves to a site which prominently brandishes the LINDT trademark and purports to sell discounted LINDT-branded goods in connection with such. Thus, the Respondent has LINDT mark and images of LINDT-branded goods to create the false impression that the domain name is operated or otherwise authorised by the Complainant. The consistent UDRP decisions held that the use of a domain name to engage in activities including impersonation\/passing off, or other types of fraud can never confer a respondent with rights or legitimate interests under the Policy (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1).<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the composition of the domain name creates a high risk of implied affiliation with the LINDT brand since the Respondent has combined the Complainant’s LINDT mark with the words \"chocolate\" (a direct reference to the Complainant’s industry and offerings) and \"bliss\" (a feeling which can be associated with the consumption of confectionery goods). These additions, along with the gTLD \".shop\" (which has commercial connotations), foster the misleading impression that the corresponding website is operated or endorsed by the Complainant. Such composition cannot constitute fair use.<\/p>\n

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n

The Complainant’s “LINDT“ brand has acquired substantial goodwill and recognition which was registered as a trademark more than a century ago, and has been subject to comprehensive use in over 120 countries. It has been established before with previous UDRP decisions that “LINDT“ is considered as a well-known trademark (Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v. Sebastian Kochan, WIPO Case No. D2016-1849; Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v. gabriel araujo, CAC-UDRP-106723 (2024)). Thus, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name <lindtchocolatebliss.shop> was registered in bad faith, since it is clear that the Respondent was aware of and targeted, through its registration of the domain name, the Complainant’s globally established LINDT brand.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the Complainant explains that the Respondent has also used the domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LINDT mark, to attract users familiar with the Complainant to a site which passes off as operated or authorised by such, and to derive commercial gain from confused internet users who, believing they are interacting with a site legitimately associated with the Complainant, attempt to purchase the purported (and apparently discounted) offerings.<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the Respondent has attempted to create confusion with the Complainant with a view to deriving commercial gain by prominently brandishing the LINDT mark, featuring images of the Complainant’s LINDT-branded goods, and ailing to prominently or sufficiently disclaim the Domain Name’s lack of connection to the Complainant.<\/p>\n

The Complainant explains that the Respondent, in the past, has been a respondent in at least two recent previous domain name disputes resulting in the transfer of the domain names to the complainants (e.g. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. BergeronRichard, WIPO Case No. D2024-3348 and Colgate-Palmolive Company, The Murphy-Phoenix Company, Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc. v. DODSONCLAYTON, KathleenCarter, BergeronRichard, du yan, WIPO Case No. D2024-3853). Thus, the Respondent's engagement in similar acts of cybersquatting is wider evidence of its bad faith conduct, reflecting a propensity to target multiple distinct brands.<\/p>\n

Based on these grounds, the Complainant concludes the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/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": "

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": [ "Mrs Selma Ünlü" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-12-30 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the trademarks bearing “LINDT”, inter alia<\/em>, the following:<\/p>\n