FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
Founded in 1933, the Complainant is a French multi-national company, engaged in the food industry, particularly the dairy sector. The Complainant has traded under the name “Lactalis” since 1999. The Complainant is the largest dairy products group in the world, with over 85,500 employees, 266 production sites, and a presence in over 51 different countries.<\/p>\n
In addition to the Complainant’s LACTALIS registered trademarks, the Complainant owns a domain name portfolio containing domain names such as <lactalis.com>, registered since January 9, 1999.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on December 5, 2024 and resolves to a parking page with commercial links. MX records are configured in the DNS to which the disputed domain name has been delegated.<\/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": "
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LACTALIS trademark, subject to an obvious misspelling including an additional letter “t” to form a double “t” or “tt”. This is characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Previous panels have found that slight spelling variations do not prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
The addition of the gTLD “.com” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark or prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its associated domain name.<\/p>\n
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. Previous panels have held that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name if the Whois information is not similar thereto.<\/p>\n
The Respondent is not related to the Complainant in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for the Respondent and has no business with it. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s LACTALIS trademark, nor permission to apply for registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the Complainant’s trademark, namely it was registered in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors, and this can constitute evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name concerned.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name redirects to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not making a bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services by means of the disputed domain name, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use thereof.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n The Complainant is one of the world’s leading producers of dairy products and enjoys a strong worldwide reputation. The Complainant’s trademark is well-known and previous panels have confirmed its notoriety. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. The misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar thereto. Previous panels have seen this as evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name redirects to a parking page with commercial links, confirming that the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to its own website by taking advantage of the Complainant’s trademark, which is evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name has been configured with MX records, which suggests that the disputed domain name may be used actively for e-mail purposes. It is inconceivable that the Respondent would be able to make any good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an e-mail address.<\/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": [
"Andrew Lothian"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-01-11 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Among others, the Complainant is the owner of European Union Registered Trademark No. 1529833 for the word mark LACTALIS, registered on November 7, 2002 in Classes 1, 5, 10, 13, 16, 31, 33, 34, 40, and 42.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"lacttalis.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}