{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108426", "time_of_filling": "2026-02-20 11:39:13", "domain_names": [ "chocolatlindt.com", "chocolindtdream.com", "frchocolatlindt.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG" ], "complainant_representative": "SILKA AB", "respondent": [ "Oliver Kinger (Private LLC)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that it is the owner of the registered trademark LINDT in numerous jurisdictions and that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its registered trademark. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain names <chocolatlindt.com>, <chocolindtdream.com> and <frchocolatlindt.com> which were all registered on October 6, 2025.<\/span><\/p>\n

Actually, in the Complainant's view, the disputed domain names <<\/span>chocolatlindt.com>, <chocolindtdream.com> and <frchocolatlindt.com> incorporate the Complainant’s LINDT trademark and the additional terms included in the disputed domain names (“chocolat,” “choco,” “dream,” and “fr”) do not diminish the confusing similarity between said domain names and the Complainant’s mark.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. Actually, according to the Complainant, the Respondent does not have trademark rights in \"chocolatlindt.com”, “chocolindtdream.com”, “frchocolatlindt.com”, “chocolatlindt”, “chocolindtdream”, or “frchocolatlindt”.  Furthermore, the Complainant outlines that the Respondent is not commonly known by “chocolatlindt.com”, “chocolindtdream.com”, “frchocolatlindt.com”, “chocolatlindt”, “chocolindtdream”, or “frchocolatlindt” and that the Respondent is not connected to nor affiliated with the Complainant and has not received license or consent to use the LINDT trademark. In addition, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or for any non-commercial activity. In particular, according to the Complainant, although the disputed domain names are currently inactive, as a result of the Complainant’s takedown requests, they previously resolved to websites that created the misleading impression of being affiliated with, authorised by, or endorsed by Lindt.<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith. Actually, considering that the LINDT trademark is highly distinctive and well-known, as also acknowledged by previous UDRP panels, the Complainant finds it very unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s activities or of its LINDT mark when it registered three domain names that combine the LINDT mark with terms clearly and directly linked to the Complainant’s field of activity.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also submits that the disputed domain names are being used in bad faith.  In particular, the Complainant notes that, although the disputed domain names are currently inactive, they previously resolved to websites that purported to offer for sale a LINDT‑branded chocolate calendar. Said websites provided no indication or disclaimer in a prominent manner clarifying that their operators were unaffiliated with the Complainant. In the Complainant’s view, such use of the disputed domain names was liable to mislead consumers into believing that the websites were operated by, endorsed by, or otherwise connected with the Complainant, which was not the case. The Complainant also insists that currently the domain names are inactive but that this circumstance does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under the doctrine of passive holding.<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant has demonstrated that MX servers are configured for the domain names <chocolatlindt.com> and <frchocolatlindt.com>, indicating a risk that the Respondent may use the above domain names to create e-mail addresses with the suffixes “@chocolatlindt.com” and “@frchocolatlindt.com” for deceptive purposes.<\/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": "

The Complainant´s contentions are summarized above.<\/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": "

In the case at hand the Complaint relates to three domain names:<\/span>

- <chocolatlindt.com><\/span><\/p>\n

- <chocolindtdream.com><\/p>\n

- <frchocolatlindt.com><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

According to Article 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\"Rules\"), the Complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In the present case the Registrar Verification has confirmed that all the domain names in dispute are registered in the name of Private LLC (Oliver Kinger). Therefore, the Panel does not see any obstacles in rendering a decision in the present case even if the Complaint relates to more than one domain name.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Guido Maffei" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-03-31 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner, amongst others, of the following trademark registrations: <\/p>\n

- German trademark registration No. 91037 for LINDT (word mark) filed on June 2, 1906, registered on September 27, 1906 and duly renewed in class 30;<\/p>\n

- United States trademark registration No. 87306 for LINDT (word mark), filed on December 19, 1910, registered on July 9, 1912 and duly renewed in class 30;<\/p>\n

- International trademark registration No. 622189 for LINDT (word mark), registered on July 12, 1994 and duly renewed in class 30;<\/p>\n

-  European Union trademark registration No. 134007 for LINDT (word mark), filed on April 01, 1996, registered on September 07, 1998 and duly renewed in class 30;<\/p>\n

-  International trademark registration No. 936939 for LINDT (word mark), registered on July 27, 2007 and duly renewed in classes 06, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 28 and 41;<\/p>\n

-  International trademark registration No. 1128456 for LINDT (device mark), registered on May 25, 2012 and duly renewed in classes 06, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 28, 30, 35, 41 and 43;<\/p>\n

-  International trademark registration No. 1277242 for LINDT (device mark), registered on October 7, 2015 and duly renewed in classes 29, 30 and 32.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "chocolatlindt.com": "TRANSFERRED", "chocolindtdream.com": "TRANSFERRED", "frchocolatlindt.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }