The Complainant distributes comprehensive food supplements, such as vitamins, probiotics, and proteins, as well as tea and beauty products. The Complainant, conducting business under its company name Sunday Natural Products GmbH, has generated revenues of approximately €100 million.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names, <sundaynaturalshop.com><\/strong>, <sundaynaturalosterreich.com><\/strong>, and <sundaynaturalschweiz.com><\/strong>, were registered on September 11, 2025, September 15, 2025, and September 16, 2025, respectively. The disputed domain names resolve to websites prominently displaying the Complainant’s marks as well as goods bearing the Complainant’s mark.<\/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 requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n i) The Complainant has rights in the SUNDAY NATURAL mark, as identified in the section “Identification of Rights” above. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SUNDAY NATURAL mark because they incorporate the Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely add non-distinctive elements such as the geographical indications “Schweiz” (German word for Switzerland), “Österreich” (German word for Austria), and the generic term “shop”;<\/p>\n ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. On the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve, the Complainant’s mark is displayed, and prima facie unauthorized products are offered for sale. The Respondent is not identified by the name “SUNDAY NATURAL.” Other than the apparent identity fraud, it does not operate any business known as “Sunday Natural,” nor does it offer goods or services under the SUNDAY NATURAL trademark. Furthermore, it has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights for “SUNDAY NATURAL.” The Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names;<\/p>\n iii) The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith, as it has engaged in blatant identity theft by copying the Complainant’s official website, including its web shop, with the intent to mislead potential customers and perpetrate fraud. All elements on the Respondent’s websites have been directly copied from the Complainant’s website, including the overall look and feel, images, and product displays.<\/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": " PRELIMINARY ISSUE 1: Multiple Respondents<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant has alleged that it is likely that the disputed domain names are under the control of a single entity and that consolidation is appropriate in this matter. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Policy provides 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 The Complainant contends that: (iv) Supporting Case Law: Previous UDRP decisions confirm that consolidation is appropriate where the registrants are shown to operate under common control (see e.g., WIPO Case No. D2016-0799 PRADA S.A. v. various respondents; CAC Case No. 101969 <UNDERARMOUROUTLETSTOREONSALE.COM>).<\/p>\n The Panel notes that all elements on the Respondent’s three disputed domain names’ websites have been directly copied from the Complainant’s website, including the overall look and feel, images, and product displays. Furthermore, all of the disputed domain names were registered within one week. Considering all of these circumstances collectively, the Panel finds that all of the disputed domain names are subject to common control by a single entity. Therefore, the Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain names are commonly owned and controlled by a single Respondent, who is using multiple aliases. Throughout this Decision, the Respondents will be collectively referred to as “the Respondent.” <\/p>\n PRELIMINARY ISSUE 2: Language of the Proceedings<\/strong> <\/p>\n The Panel notes that the Registration Agreements for the disputed domain names <sundaynaturalshop.com><\/strong> and <sundaynaturalosterreich.com><\/strong> are written in Chinese, thereby making the language of the proceedings Chinese. The Complainant has requested that the proceeding be conducted in English. The Panel has the 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 Section 4.5, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition; see also 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 The Complainant contends that, with respect to the disputed domain name <sundaynaturalschweiz.com>, the Registrar has confirmed English to be the language. Regarding the disputed domain names <sundaynaturalshop.com> and <sundaynaturalosterreich.com>, the Complainant requests that the language of the proceeding be changed from Chinese to English.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n As previously discussed in section “Preliminary Issue 1: Multiple Respondents,” all of the disputed domain names are subject to common control by a single entity. Given that the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name <sundaynaturalschweiz.com><\/strong> is in English and that the content of all of the disputed domain names is also written entirely in English, the Panel infers that the Respondent is capable of communicating in English. Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive argument has been adduced by the Complainant. After considering the circumstances of the present case, and in the absence of a Response or any objection to the Complainant’s request, the Panel determines that the proceeding shall be conducted in English. <\/p>\n The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP have been met and that there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to render a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Mr. Ho-Hyun Nahm Esq."
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-10-20 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of the trademark SUNDAY NATURAL, inter alia, EUIPO Reg. No. 016469281, registered on July 10, 2017, in classes 3 and 5, and in 10 other classes, and international trademark Reg. No. 1574700, registered on August 28, 2020, in classes 3 and 5, and in 3 other classes, with an extension to China.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"sundaynaturalshop.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"sundaynaturalosterreich.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"sundaynaturalschweiz.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
(i) Common Control: The disputed domain names are subject to common control. Evidence supporting this includes consistent patterns in the websites associated with the domain names;
(ii) Procedural Efficiency: Consolidation will lead to a fair, equitable, and procedurally efficient resolution of the dispute, whereas separate proceedings would result in unnecessary duplication and could lead to inconsistent outcomes;
(iii) Established UDRP Jurisprudence: Pursuant to Paragraph 10(e) of the UDRP Rules and in line with established UDRP decision-making, panels routinely grant consolidation where domain names are subject to common control and where consolidation would be fair and efficient to all parties; and<\/p>\n