{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108073",
    "time_of_filling": "2025-11-13 09:47:02",
    "domain_names": [
        "aarla.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Arla Foods Amba"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Abion GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "Xing Xiao"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p><strong><span>A. Complainant's Factual Allegations<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span>The Complainant is the fifth largest dairy company in the world and a cooperative owned by more than 12,500 dairy farmers. It was constituted in 2000, when the largest Danish dairy cooperative MD Foods merged with its Swedish counterpart Arla ekonomisk F&ouml;rening. It employs around 21,895 full time employees and reached a global revenue of EUR 13,8 billion for the year 2024. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span><strong>B. <\/strong><\/span><strong>Respondent's Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span>The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has consequently made no factual allegations. The Respondent is Xing Xiao, based at the address of Sichuan lu zhou tian chi zhen, bai yang cun, ba she 3 hao fu 1 hao, China, Postcode 320000. The disputed domain name was registered on March 31, 2024 by the Respondent, as confirmed by the Registrar. At the time the Complainant found out the disputed domain name, it resolved to an inactive website. At the time of filing this Complaint, it resolved to a website displaying pornographic content. <\/span><\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p><strong><span>A. COMPLAINANT<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span>Language of the Proceedings<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span>The Complaint is written in English. According to the registrar's verification response ('the RVR'), the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. The Complainant submitted a request for English to be the language of this administrative proceeding. <\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<p>The Respondent understands English language on the following grounds: i) the disputed domain name is composed of Latin characters; ii) by registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent was trying to target a broad visitor, not limited to Chinese speaking visitors; iii) the Respondent has registered numerous other domain names using Latin characters and incorporating English terms.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li><span>The English language being commonly used internationally, it is fair to the Parties that the language be English;<\/span><\/li>\n<li>A translation of the Complaint into Chinese will entail significant additional costs for the Complainant and delay in the proceedings.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span>The Complainant's contentions can be summarized as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong>I. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><span>&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark on the grounds: <\/span><span>i) the addition of letter &ldquo;a&rdquo; to &rdquo;arla&rdquo; does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity; ii) p<\/span><span>anels have consistently held that minor alterations to a complainant&rsquo;s trademark do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, and that typosquatting creates <\/span>a virtually identical and\/or confusingly similar sign for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i); iii) WIPO Overview 3.0, Paragraph 1.9 explains that domain names comprising a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark are considered confusingly similar.<\/p>\n<p><strong>II. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span>The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name on the grounds: i) t<\/span><span>he Complainant has never granted the Respondent with any rights to use the ARLA trademark in any form; ii) t<\/span><span>he Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name or owns any corresponding trademark; iii) w<\/span><span>hen searching &ldquo;aarla&rdquo; on the popular Chinese Internet search engines, one of the top hit results relates to the Complainant and its business; iv) t<\/span><span>he Respondent&rsquo;s name does not correspond to the disputed domain name; v) w<\/span><span>hen conducting trademark searches, no information is found in relation with trademarks corresponding to &ldquo;aarla&rdquo;; vi) t<\/span><span>he Respondent hiding his identity in Registrar&rsquo;s Whois means that he is not interested in being known by the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong>III. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span>Registration in bad faith<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span>The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith on the grounds: i) ARLA trademark is well known and registered in many countries. By online search, the Respondent should have learnt about the Complainant and its trademark; ii) t<\/span><span>he Respondent knew the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span>Use in bad faith<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span>The Complainant submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith on the grounds: i) the disputed domain name resolved to a website displaying pornographic content, which monetized user traffic through click-through revenue; ii) t<\/span><span>he Respondent selected the disputed domain name to trade on the Complainant&rsquo;s goodwill or to suggest a false association with the Complainant; iii) t<\/span><span>he Respondent is the registrant of several domain names that incorporate or imitate trademarks of others; iv) t<\/span><span>he Respondent is the registrant of several other domain names that likewise resolve to pornographic content; v) t<\/span><span>he Respondent did not reply to the Complainant&rsquo;s cease-and-desist letter; vi) t<\/span><span>he Respondent is trying to conceal its identity regarding the ownership of the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span>B. RESPONDENT<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/span><\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p><span>The language of the registration agreement is Chinese. The Complainant has requested that the language of the proceedings be English. The Respondent did not <\/span><span>respond to the issue of the language of the proceedings and did not reject the Complainant&rsquo;s request. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>The Panel is given discretion under Paragraph 11 of the Rules to determine the appropriate language of the administrative proceeding. Paragraph 10 of the Rules <\/span><span>mentions that the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. Based on the following <\/span><span>factors, the Panel has decided that it would be fair and equitable to all parties to have the language of the proceedings be English: <\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span>The Complaint was written in English, an international language comprehensible to a wide range of internet users worldwide, including those living in Denmark and in China; <\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>While determining the language of the administrative proceeding, the Panel has a duty to consider who would suffer the greatest inconvenience as a result of the Panel's determination. On the one hand, the determination of English as the language of this administrative proceeding &ndash; a widely spoken language &ndash; is unlikely to cause the Respondent any inconvenience. The determination of Chinese as the language of this administrative proceeding, on the other hand, is very likely to cause the Complainant inconvenience, and to interfere with the overall due expedition of the proceedings under the Rules. See <em>Burberry Limited v Fei Cheng<\/em>, CAC-UDRP-106643; <\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>The Complainant has requested that the language of the proceedings be English. The Respondent did not respond to reject the Complainant&rsquo;s request.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span>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.<\/span><\/p>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Yunze Lian"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-12-24 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant has provided evidence of its ownership of registered trademark rights in the trademark ARLA in classes 1, 5, 29, 30, 31 and 32 in multiple jurisdictions, including Denmark, the European Union, China and other countries:<\/p>\n<p>EU trademark registration No. 001520899, registered on May 7, 2001;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>International trademark registration No. 731917, registered on March 20, 2000.<\/p>\n<p><span>The trademarks are still valid at present and their registration dates predate the registration date of the disputed domain name, &lt;aarla.com&gt;, registered on March <\/span><span>31, 2024.&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant also owns numerous domain names containing its trademarks, including &lt;arla.com.cn&gt;, registered on December 16, 2002; &lt;arla.com&gt;, registered on July 15, 1996; &lt;arla.eu&gt;, registered on June 1, 2006; &lt;arla-foods.cn&gt;, registered on July 13, 2016; &lt;arlafoods.com&gt;, registered on October 1, 1999; &lt;arlafoods.co.uk&gt;, registered on October 1, 1999 and &lt;arlafoods.ca&gt;, registered on November 29, 2000.&nbsp;<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "aarla.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}