{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108070", "time_of_filling": "2025-10-27 15:56:05", "domain_names": [ "lupilude.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "LIDL Stiftung & Co. KG " ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "zhiling he" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

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 July 20, 2024. The disputed domain name resolved to a website presenting various products identical or similar to that of the Complainant and qualified by the latter as a fake website for the Lupilu products.<\/p>\n

Around October 2025, the domain has been redirected to a website under the domain <lupilu.topshop-de.com> displaying highly similar content than under <lupilude.com> and additional pay per click (PPC) advertising-links.<\/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, combine with the know ISO code “de”, referring to Germany 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 used first the disputed domain as a fake website of the LUPILU products and recently redirected to a website under the domain <lupilu.topshop-de.com> displaying highly similar content than under <lupilude.com> and additional pay per click (PPC) advertising-links.<\/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. Respondent is targeting the Complainant’s trademark along with a website in German language, it is easily construed that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the domain name. 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": "

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": [ "David-Irving Tayer (Presiding Panelist)" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-12-04 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