The Complainant is one of the largest supermarket chains in Europe, operating more than 12,600 stores. Its stores are currently located primarily in Europe and the United States. In 1930, Josef Schwarz joined A. Lidl & Cie, renaming it Lidl & Schwarz KG, and expanded the business into food wholesale. His son, Dieter Schwarz, introduced discount stores in 1973, leading to the rapid expansion of the chain. Today, the Complainant is part of the Schwarz Group, the world’s fifth-largest retailer, having entered the United Kingdom in 1994 and achieving an 8.1% market share by 2024. The company expanded to the United States in 2017, reaching 173 stores by 2024.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on June 18, 2014. From the time of registration until 2018, the disputed domain name was not actively used. In 2025, the disputed domain name resolved to a parked page displaying third-party links categorized under headings such as “Baby and Children’s Clothing,” “Baby Store,” and “Baby Clothing Store,” each of which redirected to advertisements or related links for children’s clothing, including “Jacadi,” “Petit Bateau,” and “NAME IT.” As of May 25, 2025, the disputed domain name was listed for sale as a Premium Domain on GoDaddy Germany for €79,706.40, with the option either to purchase directly or to submit a counter-offer.<\/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 holds rights in the LUPILU trademark, as set forth in the “Identification of Rights” section above. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LUPILU trademark, as it incorporates the LUPILU mark in its entirety, followed only by the “.com” gTLD.<\/p>\n
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is neither licensed nor otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s LUPILU trademark, nor is the Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the disputed domain name resolves to a parked page displaying third-party links, which operate on a pay-per-click basis. The disputed domain name currently resolves to an error page.<\/p>\n (iii) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It incorporates the Complainant’s LUPILU trademark in its entirety without consent or authorization, and it was registered long after the Complainant’s well-known LUPILU mark. From the time of registration until 2018, the disputed domain name was not actively used. By displaying PPC links for children’s clothing on the website in question, the Respondent is targeting the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name has been listed for sale at a price that significantly exceeds the costs associated with the domain’s initial registration. The Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the domain name. This knowledge is evident from the fame of the Complainant’s company and the well-established reputation of its trademarks. The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. <\/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": " Panel’s Decision on Language of the Proceedings and Procedural Directions<\/strong><\/p>\n On August 25, 2025, the Panel issued its Decision on Language of the Proceedings and Procedural Directions as follows:<\/p>\n The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Korean, thereby making Korean the language of the proceedings. The Complainant has requested that the proceeding be conducted in English. The Complainant contends as follows:<\/p>\n The CAC has received an answer from the Respondent (submitted both in English and Korean) stating that he\/she does not understand English very well and wishes to proceed in Korean. The CAC has responded in both English and Korean, informing the parties that the Panel will decide on the language of the proceedings.<\/p>\n The Panel has discretion under UDRP Rule 11(a) to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings, taking into account the particular circumstances of the administrative proceeding. See Lovehoney Group Limited v. yan zhang<\/em>, 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 Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that the Complainant has advanced a persuasive argument. In view of the Respondent’s communications in both Korean and English, the Panel considers that the Respondent is able to understand the communications and the Complaint in English. Given the circumstances, the Panel determines that the language of the proceeding shall be English, while granting the Respondent the opportunity to file a response in Korean to the Complaint by September 1, 2025.<\/p>\n On August 25, 2025, the CAC notified the Parties of the Panel’s decision on the language of the proceedings, while granting the Respondent the opportunity to file a Response in Korean to the Complaint by September 1, 2025. The Respondent did not submit a Response before the deadline.<\/p>\n The Panel is satisfied that all remaining procedural requirements under the UDRP have been met, and there is no impediment to the issuance of a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Mr. Ho-Hyun Nahm Esq."
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-09-03 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of numerous LUPILU trademarks registered in various jurisdictions worldwide, including the following:<\/p>\n\n
\n