{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108189", "time_of_filling": "2025-12-01 16:32:46", "domain_names": [ "discount-lindtusa.shop" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG" ], "complainant_representative": "SILKA AB", "respondent": [ "林志冰 \/ lin zhibing" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant, founded in 1845, is a renowned chocolate manufacturer based in Switzerland. As a leader in the market for premium quality chocolate, the Complainant produces chocolates at 12 proprietary production facilities situated across Europe and the United States. These products are distributed through 38 subsidiaries and branch offices, as well as a network of over 100 independent distributors worldwide. The Complainant also operates more than 500 proprietary retail outlets. Employing approximately 15,000 individuals, the Complainant reported consolidated sales of CHF 5.47 billion in 2024. The Complainant maintains an online presence through, inter alia<\/em>, the domain names <lindt.com> (registered on December 16, 1997) and <lindtusa.com> (registered on October 11, 2001). These websites provide information concerning the Complainant and its global activities, including those in the United States.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on November 6, 2025. It previously resolved to a website that impersonated or falsely purported to be an official site of the Complainant. That website prominently and repeatedly displayed the LINDT mark and logo in connection with the purported sale of discounted LINDT-branded chocolates. At present, the disputed domain name no longer resolves to an active website following the submission of a takedown request by the Complainant.<\/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:<\/span><\/p>\n

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

(i) The Complainant holds rights in the trademark LINDT, as set forth in the \"Identification of Rights\" section above. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark LINDT, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, followed only by the descriptive terms “discount” and “USA,” along with the “.shop” gTLD.<\/span><\/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 LINDT mark, nor is the Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent is not engaged in any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Rather, the disputed domain name previously resolved to a website that impersonated or sought to pass itself off as an official website of the Complainant. The site prominently and repeatedly displayed the LINDT mark and logo in connection with the purported sale of discounted LINDT-branded chocolates. The Respondent failed to accurately and prominently disclose its lack of affiliation with the Complainant. At present, the disputed domain name no longer resolves to an active website.<\/p>\n

(iii) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, thereby satisfying the cumulative requirement under the Policy that both bad faith registration and bad faith use be established. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name incorporating the well-known and widely recognized LINDT trademark, despite having no rights or legitimate interests in doing so. The website to which the disputed domain name previously resolved impersonated or passed itself off as an official website of the Complainant, prominently displaying the LINDT mark and logo in multiple locations in connection with the purported sale of discounted LINDT branded chocolates. The Respondent failed to provide any accurate or prominent disclaimer regarding its lack of affiliation with the Complainant. At present, the disputed domain name no longer resolves to an active website. The Respondent also appears to have deceptively collected users’ personal information by presenting the website as being authorized by the Complainant, thereby creating a significant phishing risk. The misleading presentation of the website strongly suggests an intent to exploit the collected information for future fraudulent purposes, such as phishing campaigns or other brand-related scams. The current passive holding of the domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith. The Respondent has been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings, such as KW Vermögensverwaltung GmbH v. (linzhibing, lin zhibing)<\/em>, WIPO Case No. D2025-4183, where it was found that the registration and use of the domain name was in bad faith.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span>RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/span><\/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": "

Language of Proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is in Chinese, thereby making Chinese the default language of the proceedings. However, the Complainant has requested that the proceedings be conducted in English. Under UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel has the discretion to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings, considering the particular circumstances of the case. 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 the Registration Agreement designating Japanese as the required language).<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant presents the following arguments in support of its request:<\/span><\/p>\n

(i) The disputed domain name is composed entirely of Latin alphabet characters rather than Chinese script. In addition, it incorporates the English word “discount,” as well as the abbreviation “USA,” (commonly perceived as “United States of America,”) which further indicates the Respondent’s familiarity with the English language.<\/span><\/p>\n

(ii) The website previously associated with the disputed domain name was displayed in the English language. This website is no longer active.<\/span><\/p>\n

(iii) The Complainant is domiciled in Switzerland and represented by Swedish counsel. While neither party has knowledge of the Chinese language, both are proficient in English, which is widely used as the primary language for international affairs.<\/span><\/p>\n

(iv) To conduct the administrative proceeding in Chinese, the Complainant would need to engage specialized translation services, likely incurring costs exceeding the overall expenses of these proceedings. Consequently, the use of Chinese would impose a disproportionate burden on the Complainant, particularly given the relatively low cost of the current process.<\/span><\/p>\n

Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds the Complainant’s arguments persuasive. After considering the specific circumstances of this case, and in the absence of a response or any objection to the Complainant’s request regarding the language of proceedings, the Panel determines that the proceedings shall be conducted in English.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP have been met, and there is no reason why a decision should not be issued.<\/span><\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Mr. Ho-Hyun Nahm Esq." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-01-08 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the registered owner of the trademark LINDT, registered within Germany, the United States, and with the WIPO and the EUIPO, inter alia<\/em>, as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n