{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107779", "time_of_filling": "2025-07-30 10:00:30", "domain_names": [ "frlacctalis.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Groupe Lactalis" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Bit Cloundo" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a French multi-national company, founded in 1933, engaged in the food industry, particularly the dairy sector. The Complainant states to be operating under the name “Lactalis” since 1999.<\/span><\/p>\n

LACTALIS has over 85,500 employees, 266 production sites, and a presence in 51 different countries.<\/span><\/p>\n

Apart from registered trademarks which were declared by previous panels as well known (see WIPO Case No. D2022-2429, Groupe Lactalis v. paul goodrich and WIPO Case No. Case No. D2020-1701, Groupe Lactalis v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1246860447 \/ Pietro Chirco, Pietro), the Complainant is also the owner of a large domain names portfolio, including the same distinctive wording LACTALIS, among which one can find in particular the domain name <lactalis.com> registered on January 9, 1999.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <frlacctalis.com> was registered on June 9, 2025 and resolves to an error page. Besides, it has been used in a phishing scheme.<\/span><\/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 COMPLAINANT'S CONTENTIONS:<\/span><\/p>\n

Identical or confusingly similar<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <frlacctalis.com> and the Complainant's registered trademarks are confusingly similar. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that its trademark is fully contained within the disputed domain name and points out that the elements in which the signs vary, are insignificant and thus do not alter the overall confusion between the signs. <\/span><\/p>\n

No rights or legitimate interests<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that there is no evidence at all that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name, nor that the Respondent is making a bona fide offering of goods or services or preparing to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Complainant points out that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to pass itself off as an employee of LACTALIS INGREDIENTS, a subsidiary of the Complainant, in order to receive payment in place of the Complainant. The fraud was proven since Lactalis Ingredients’ Client, ICV Global, has been misled by the payment request coming from the spoofed email address <stephanie.bigot@frlacctalis.com>, configured from the disputed domain name reservation frlacctalis.com. ICV Global has subsequently made the requested payment to the Respondent amounting to 54747.20 USD.<\/p>\n

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name has thus been used in bad faith and using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy 4(c)(iii).<\/span><\/p>\n

Registered and used in bad faith<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

As far as bad faith registration and use is concerned, the Complainant states that the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation means that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark LACTALIS, and therefore could not ignore the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Respondent points out the use of the disputed domain name in a phishing scheme as described above.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS:<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.<\/span><\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark 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": [ "Hana Císlerová" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-09-09 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the registered owner the following trademark registrations:<\/span><\/p>\n