{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108272", "time_of_filling": "2025-12-19 11:02:17", "domain_names": [ "lindtxmas.shop", "lindtxmas.store" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG" ], "complainant_representative": "SILKA AB", "respondent": [ "liu ting hong \/ 刘廷洪" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

A. Complainant's Factual Allegations<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant, founded in 1845, is a well-known chocolate maker based in Switzerland. As a leader in the market of premium quality chocolate, the Complainant produces chocolates from 12 own production sites in Europe and the United States. These are sold by 38 subsidiaries and branch offices, as well as via a network of over 100 independent distributors around the globe. The Complainant also runs more than 500 of its own shops. With around 15,000 employees, the Complainant reported sales of CHF 5.47 billion in 2024.<\/p>\n

B. Respondent's Factual Allegations<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has consequently made no factual allegations. The Respondent is liu ting hong, based at the address of long gang, shen zhen shi, guang dong, Postcode 518116, China. The disputed domain names were registered on November 15, 2025 by the Respondent, as confirmed by the Registrar. The disputed domain names previously resolved to active websites, selling LINDT chocolates. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain names were passively held.<\/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 names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

A. COMPLAINANT <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

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

The Complaint is written in English. According to the registrar's verification response, the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain names is Chinese. The Complainant submitted a request for English to be the language of this administrative proceeding on the following grounds: i) the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in Latin alphabet, which reflects the Complainant’s familiarity with English language; ii) the websites previously hosted by the disputed domain names were displayed in English language, further confirming his familiarity with English language; iii) the English language being commonly used internationally, it is fair to the Parties that the language be English; iii) a translation of the Complaint into Chinese will entail significant additional costs for the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant's contentions can be summarized as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n

I. The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that it is the owner of the registered trademark LINDT in numerous jurisdictions as mentioned above in the IDENTIFICATION OF RIGHTS. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its registered trademark.<\/span> The disputed domain names, <lindtxmas.shop> and <lindtxmas.store>, incorporate the Complainant’s LINDT trademark in its entirety with the addition of the term, “xmas”, a common abbreviation for “Christmas”. LINDT trademark remains clearly recognizable in the disputed domain names, and the addition of a non-distinctive term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The Complainant also cites WIPO Overview 3.0, paragraph 1.7 to support its contention.<\/span><\/p>\n

II. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names on the grounds:<\/span> i) the Respondent does not have trademark rights in LINDTXMAS; ii) the Respondent is not commonly known by LINDTXMAS; iii) the Respondent is not connected to nor affiliated with the Complainant and has not received license or consent to use LINDT trademark; iv) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.<\/span><\/p>\n

III. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

Registration in bad faith<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith on the grounds: i)<\/span> LINDT trademark is distinctive and well-known, which were acknowledged by previous UDRP panels; ii) by online search, the Respondent should have learnt about the Complainant and its trademark; iii)<\/span> the Respondent has intentionally attempted to target the Complainant’s mark and mislead internet users as to the source or affiliation. It therefore constitutes clear evidence that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith. <\/span><\/p>\n

Use in bad faith <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are being used in bad faith on the grounds: The disputed domain names previously resolved to websites, displaying the Complainant’s LINDT trademark, featured images of LINDT-branded chocolates, falsely representing itself as an official LINDT entity. It is clear that the Respondent used the disputed domain names to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion regarding the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the websites. Currently the domain names are inactive. However, it does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under the doctrine of passive holding.<\/span><\/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. <\/span><\/p>\n

B. <\/strong>RESPONDENT <\/span><\/strong><\/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 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": "

The language of the registration agreement is Chinese. The Complainant has requested that the language of the proceedings be English. The Respondent did not respond to the issue of the language of the proceedings and did not reject the Complainant’s request. 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 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.<\/p>\n

Based on the following factors, the Panel has decided that it would be fair and equitable to both parties to have the language of the proceedings be English:<\/p>\n