{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107830", "time_of_filling": "2025-08-11 10:29:39", "domain_names": [ "orlafoods.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Arla Foods Amba " ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "Shah Wazeer" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

Arla Foods is the fifth-largest dairy company in the world and a cooperative owned by more than 12,500 dairy farmers. Arla Foods Amba was constituted in 2000, when the largest Danish dairy cooperative MD Foods merged with its Swedish counterpart Arla ekonomisk Förening. Arla Foods Amba employs around 21,895 full time employees and reached a global revenue of EUR 13,8 billion for the year 2024.<\/span>

<\/p>\n

Arla Foods’ products are easily recognized by the consumers all over the world due to the significant investments of the company in promoting its products and brands and offering high-quality products. It sells its milk-based products under its famous brands ARLA, LURPAK, CASTELLO, APETINA and others.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Complainant also enjoys a strong online presence via its official website and social media. Due to extensive use, advertising and revenue associated with its trademarks worldwide, the Complainant enjoys a high degree of renown around the world.<\/p>\n



The Complainant is the owner of the registered trademarks ARLA and ARLA FOODS in numerous of countries all over the world including in Pakistan where the Respondent resides.<\/span>

All these trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name.<\/span>

The Complainant has also registered a number of domain names under generic top-level domains and country-code top-level domains containing the term “ARLA” and “ARLA FOODS” like for example <arlafoods.com>, < arla.com>, <arlafoods.co.uk>. The Complainant is using the domain names to connect to a website through which it informs potential customers about its trademarks and its products and services.<\/span><\/p>\n

Orla Foods & Beverages is a firm registered in Pakistan since 2010 and member of the local Chamber of Commerce & Industry. The Respondent is the holder of the majority of the firm's shares.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name is used in a website which shows the Respondent's products bearing the ORLA sign, namely juices, flavored milk and ultra-heat treated milk.<\/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 parties' contentions are summarized below.<\/p>\n

COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name is a misspelled variation of the Complainant’s trademark ARLA FOOD (with the first letter “A” being replaced by the letter “O”), with the generic top-level domain “.com” and constitutes a case of typosquatting.<\/p>\n

The generic top-level domain “.com” is a standard registration requirement and should be disregarded when assessing whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ARLA FOODS.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered many years after the first registrations of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name nor is the Respondent affiliated with the Complainant in any form or has endorsed or sponsored the Respondent.<\/p>\n

There is no evidence that the Respondent owns any registered trademark including the disputed domain name terms “orlafoods” or “orla foods”.<\/p>\n

The Respondent's use of a misspelled version of the Complainant’s trademarks in the disputed domain name shows the Respondent’s attempt to capitalize on Internet users’ possible typing errors.<\/p>\n

A previous version of the Respondent's website contained a logo similar to the Complainant's logo and a contact form, and provided information about drinks, including flavored milk. Such a website cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services, and cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Respondent's behavior, who did not reply to the Complainant's cease-and-desist letter, modified the logo on the website and did not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, demonstrates the Respondent’s absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name many years after the first registrations of the Complainant’s ARLA and ARLA FOODS trademarks. The ARLA and ARLA FOODS trademarks are widely known trademarks, registered in many countries including Pakistan where the Respondent is located. The Complainant enjoys a strong online presence, and the logo used in the initial version of the Respondent's website included a logo very similar to the Complainant's logo, therefore it is inconceivable that the Respondent had no knowledge of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The structure of the disputed domain name reflects the Respondent’s intention to create an association, and a subsequent likelihood of confusion, with the Complainant and its trademark in Internet users’ minds. Such use of a misspelled version of the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name shows the Respondent’s attempt to capitalize on Internet users’ possible errors when typing the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moreover, the fact that the disputed domain name resolved to a website (i) incorporating a sign that was very similar to the Complainant’s figurative trademark, (ii) allegedly advertising dairy items and other products protected by the Complainant’s trademark registrations, and (iii) trying to gain access to user’s personal details via a form available therein, as well as the lack of response to the cease-and-desist letter constitute further evidence of registration and use in bad faith.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

The Respondent could not find any significant evidence of an identical or confusingly similar trademark in the Pakistani markets when he chose the trademark ORLA, therefore he adopted it in good faith.<\/p>\n

The word ORLA is part of the Respondent's trading name. The Respondent filed the trademark application for ORLA APPLE in 2010 in Pakistan.<\/p>\n

The Respondent has never offered the trademark or the disputed domain name for sale to the Complainant.<\/p>\n

The Respondent has never tried to profit from the Complainant's trademark because he considers that ORLA is different from the Complainant's trademark ARLA.<\/p>\n

The Respondent does not sell any kind of cheese, yogurt, etc. and does not advertise them. The Respondent is not a dairy company in the strict sense of the word and its main business concerns juices.<\/p>\n

The  Respondent has acquired a certain goodwill and reputation in the ORLA trademark.<\/p>\n

ARLA FOODS and ORLA FOODS are two visually and phonetically distinct wordings.<\/p>\n

The word ORLA has several dictionary meanings.<\/p>\n

The Respondent has made significant financial and intellectual investments on the ORLA name, therefore he has a legitimate interest in it and in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to divert traffic to a website unconnected with the Complainant. The Respondent is not using the reputation of the Complainant to generate business.<\/p>\n

The Complainant is using the UDRP in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.<\/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 not 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": "

In light of the findings under the second element, the Panel considers the assessment of this third element unnecessary. Accordingly, the Panel has not examined the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. <\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

Paragraph 12 of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy provides that \"In addition to the complaint and the response, the Panel may request, in its sole discretion, further statements or documents from either of the Parties\".<\/p>\n

It is well established that, consistent with the Policy’s stated objective of prompt and efficient resolution of a limited class of disputes, unsolicited supplemental filings are allowed only in exceptional circumstances, for instance when they involve matters that arise after the complaint was filed and which could not reasonably have been anticipated when the complaint was filed (see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2012-1225).<\/p>\n

The Panel has received an unsolicited supplemental filing from the Complainant. Given that this supplemental filing cannot be justified by any exceptional circumstance and concerns arguments that could have been anticipated when the complaint was filed, the Panel shall not take it into account in his decision. The Panel considers that disregarding the supplemental filing in the circumstances of the present case is consistent with the general principles set out in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.<\/p>\n

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": "Rejected", "panelists": [ "Michele Antonini (Presiding Panelist)" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-10-03 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the registrant, among others, of the following trademarks:<\/span><\/p>\n

- Pakistan Trademark registration No. 255845 \"ARLA\", <\/span>registered on September 18, 2008 for goods and services <\/span>in class 29;
- Pakistan Trademark registration No. 255841 \"ARLA\",<\/span> registered on September 18, 2008 for goods and services<\/span> in class 32;<\/p>\n

- EU trademark registration No. 001520899 \"ARLA\", registered on May 7, 2001, for goods and services in classes 1, 5, 29, 30, 31 and 32; and<\/span>
- Danish trademark registration No. VR 2000 01185 \"ARLA FOODS\", registered on March 6, 2000, for goods and services in classes 1, 5, 29, 30, 31 and 32.<\/span>

The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on March 11, 2025.<\/span><\/p>", "decision_domains": { "orlafoods.com": "REJECTED" } }