The Complainant is a Danish dairy company with worldwide presence, including in the United Kingdom, founded in 2000, and a cooperative owned by more than 12,500 dairy farmers. The Complainant employs around 21,895 full-time employees and reached a global revenue of EUR 13,8 billion for the year 2024.<\/p>\n
The Complainant has a worldwide presence, and also, among others, sells its milk-based products under the following brands: ARLA, LURPAK, CASTELLO, and APETINA.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is also active in the transportation and logistics sector, enabling sustainable practices, optimizing delivery routes, and exploring innovative biofuels to power its trucks, as part of its climate strategy.<\/p>\n
The Complainant also owns numerous domain names containing the trademark ARLA, used for official website purposes, among them: <arla.com> registered on July 15, 1996; <arla.ph> registered on August 31, 2001; <arla.eu> registered on June 1, 2006. <\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
<\/strong>Response<\/strong><\/p>\n The Respondent did not reply to any of the Complainant's contentions.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Complainant Contentions<\/strong>:<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain names; that the Complainant has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain names, nor is the Respondent affiliated with the Complainant in any form, nor has endorsed or sponsored the Respondent; that there is no evidence that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names terms “arla logistics”, “arlalogistics”, “arla logstics”, “arlalogstics”; nor the Respondent “Adam Ray” owns trademarks under its name; that the term ‘logistics” it is relevant to the Complainant, therefore it reflects a false association between the Complainant and the Respondent.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n On May 27, 2025, the Complainant sent a Cease-and-Desist Letter to the Respondent, including reminders. Nothing in the record suggests any response from the Respondent, with it implying bad faith.<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are thus being passively held; that there is no evidence showing that the Respondent has been using, or preparing to use, the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide<\/em> offering of goods and services or has made a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of them. <\/p>\n The Complainant contends that in similar circumstances, it has been decided that when: “the Respondent has failed to make use of the resolving website and has not demonstrated any attempt to make legitimate use of the disputed domain name and website. Such conduct evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and thus, is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name” (citing Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB v. Nick Jones, WIPO Case No. D2021-0703 and ArcelorMittal (Société Anonyme) v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC \/ Joel Tinoco, Pixel Design Costa Rica, WIPO Case No. D2021-0909).<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are thus passively held, which would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy; that there is no evidence of any actual or contemplated good-faith use of the disputed domain names (citing Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows<\/em>, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; British Airways Plc. v. David Moor<\/em>, WIPO Case No. D2006-1224 and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Raju Khan<\/em>, CAC Case No. 101517).<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"María Alejandra López García"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-10-02 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " According to the submitted evidence, the Complainant owns, among many others, the following Trademarks:<\/p>\n - International trademark for ARLA (word mark), Reg. No. 731917, registered on March 20, 2000, and in force until March 20, 2030, in International Classes (“ICs”) 1, 5, 29, 30, 31, and 32;<\/p>\n - European trademark for ARLA (word mark), Reg. No. 001520899, registered on May 7, 2001, and in force until February 24, 2030, in ICs 1, 5, 29, 30, 31, and 32;<\/p>\n - United Kingdom trademark for ARLA (word mark), Reg. No. UK00918031231, filed on March 5, 2019, granted on September 6, 2019, and in force until March 5, 2029, in ICs 1, 5, 9, 16, 29, 30, 32, 35, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45;<\/p>\n The disputed domain names <arlalogistics.com<\/strong>> and <arlalogstics.com<\/strong>> were both registered on May 19, 2024<\/strong>, and resolve to an inactive “coming soon” website.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"arlalogistics.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"arlalogstics.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
<\/li>\n\n