{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107468", "time_of_filling": "2025-04-10 18:35:25", "domain_names": [ "lindt-dubai.com", "lindtdubai.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG" ], "complainant_representative": "SILKA AB", "respondent": [ " oceane Thilda (Ma boutique)", "Jose Martinez Andres (Mi tienda)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a Swiss chocolatier and confectionery company, founded in 1845 and specialized in the production and marketing of premium quality chocolate.<\/p>\n

With a large selection of products sold in more than 120 countries around the world, today the Complainant’s chocolate products are made in 12 own production sites in Europe and the United States of America, and are distributed by 36 subsidiary companies and branch offices, in more than 500 own stores, and also via a comprehensive network of more than 100 independent distributors around the globe.<\/p>\n

With approximately 15.000 employees, the Complainant reported sales of CHF 5.47 billion in 2024 and an operating profit of CHF 8.884 million.<\/p>\n

For the purpose of the present proceeding, the Complainant is, amongst other products, the producer of the Lindt Dubai Style Chocolate: a limited-edition, handmade chocolate bar inspired by the viral Dubai chocolate trend (created in 2021 by Sarah Hamouda, which gained viral notoriety on TikTok by various creators), featuring creamy milk chocolate, pistachio butter, crispy kadayif, and velvety tahini. <\/p>\n

The Complainant is the owner of numerous domain names, including <lindt.com>, registered on December 16, 1997, and used by the Complainant to promote its products under the trademark LINDT.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <lindt-dubai.com> was registered on March 21, 2025, and currently does not resolve to an active website. However, according to the screenshots submitted by the Complainant – which have not been contested by the Respondent, it previously resolved to a website in Spanish language, in which the Complainant’s LINDT figurative mark was reproduced on the top and where LINDT DUBAI CHOCOLATE-branded goods were purportedly offered for sale with a substantial discount (2 EUR instead of 9,99 EUR). The website did not include any disclaimer and displayed the following copyright notice at the bottom of the page: “© 2024, LINDT. TOUS DROITS RÉSERVÉS”.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <lindtdubai.com> was registered on March 28, 2025, and is not redirected to an active website. Based on the screenshots provided by the Complainant – again, not challenged by the Respondent, on April 3, 2025, the disputed domain name resolved to a website offering popular perfumes for sale with a significant price reduction. Prior to that, on March 29, 2025, it was redirected to a website in Spanish featuring the Complainant’s LINDT figurative mark and images of the Complainant’s LINDT DUBAI STYLE CHOCOLATE products, which were offered for sale at the same price (2 EUR) applied on the website to which the disputed domain name <lindt-dubai.com> resolved.<\/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 names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

COMPLAINANT<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names <lindt-dubai.com> and <lindtdubai.com> are confusingly similar to the trademarks LINDT and LINDT DUBAI CHOCOLATE in which the Complainant has rights as they both reproduce the LINDT trademark and part of the LINDT DUBAI CHOCOLATE mark with the mere addition of a hyphen in the first disputed domain name “lindt” and “dubai”, and in both cases, of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, which does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant, its trademark and its own domain name. <\/p>\n

The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names because: i) the Respondent is in no way affiliated with, licensed or authorized by the Complainant to use the LINDT or LINDT DUBAI CHOCOLATE marks or register a domain name using its marks; ii) the disputed domain names and the terms “lindt-dubai” and “lindtdubai” have no meaning in English language; iii) the Respondent does not own any trademarks identical to the disputed domain names or to the terms “lindt-dubai” and “lindtdubai” and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names; iv) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain names in good faith or for a non-commercial activity since the disputed domain name <lindt-dubai.com> resolved to a website in Spanish language, on which the Complainant’s LINDT mark was published and LINDT DUBAI CHOCOLATE-branded goods were purportedly offered for sale with a substantial discount, reproducing the Complainant’s product visuals without publishing a proper disclaimer and publishing a misleading copyright notice on the home page; and  the disputed domain name <lindtdubai.com>, before resolving to a website offering popular perfumes (or most likely imitations or counterfeits of the original perfumes) for sale with a significant price reduction, was redirected to a website similar to the one published at <lindt-dubai.com>, publishing the Complainant’s trademark and offering purported LINDT DUBAI CHOCOLATE-branded goods at discounted prices, without providing any disclaimer of non-affiliation with the Complainant; and v) the disputed domain names carry a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant and its activities and were used for impersonation purposes.<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith since: i) the disputed domain names reproduce the Complainant’s well-known trademark LINDT in full and almost entirely the LINDT DUBAI CHOCOLATE mark, without the Complainant’s consent; ii) the registration and use of the Complainant’s LINDT mark long predate the date of registration of the disputed domain names; iii) since both disputed domain names at some point resolved to similar websites publishing the LINDT figurative mark and offering purported LINDT DUBAI CHOCOLATE products for sale, the Respondent had the Complainant and its activities in mind at the time of registration of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the Respondent has used without permission the Complainant’s LINDT and LINDT DUBAI CHOCOLATE marks in order to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the websites or the goods offered on them, which amounts to registration and use in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also indicates that, although the use of the disputed domain names is currently different, the website hosted by the disputed domain name <lindt-dubai.com> is inactive as it has been taken down as a result of the Complainant’s request, whereas the disputed domain name <lindtdubai.com> resolves to a website where popular perfumes are purportedly offered for sale with a significant discount, which would also constitute bad faith use based on the above-mentioned paragraph 4 (b)(iv) of the Policy.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further submits that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names is apt to disrupt the Complainant’s business, due to the customer relations issues they create for the Complainant by selling goods under the Complainant’s LINDT and LINDT DUBAI CHOCOLATE marks.<\/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 names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are 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>\n

Considering the disputed domain names are registered in the name of different named registrants, the issue of consolidation of multiple Respondents must be addressed before entering into the merits of the case.<\/p>\n

The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants.  The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are under common control and requests the consolidation of the multiple domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request. <\/p>\n

Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. <\/p>\n

In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. <\/p>\n

The Panel finds that the following circumstances highlighted by the Complainant suggest that the disputed domain names are under common control:<\/p>\n