The Complainant is a global dairy company headquartered in Denmark and owned by more than 12,500 cooperative dairy farmers. It was established in 2000 through the merger of the Danish cooperative MD Foods and the Swedish cooperative Arla ekonomisk Förening. As of 2024, the Complainant employs approximately 21,895 full-time employees and reported a global revenue of EUR 13.8 billion.<\/p>\n
The Complainant produces and markets a wide range of milk-based products under several internationally recognized brands, including ARLA, LURPAK, CASTELLO and APETINA. The Complainant maintains a strong global presence and operates an extensive online infrastructure, including its official websites and social media platforms.<\/p>\n
The Complainant also has a significant business presence in the United States, including through its subsidiaries Arla Foods Inc. and Arla Foods Hollandtown Dairy, and operates domain names such as <arlausa.com> in connection with its activities.<\/p>\n
The Complainant owns numerous domain names incorporating its ARLA and ARLA FOODS trademarks, including <arla.com>, <arlafoods.com>, <arlafoodsusa.com>, and <arlafoods-group.com>, which resolve to its official websites.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <arlafoodsco.com> was registered on February 17, 2026.<\/p>\n
At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to an inactive website. However, the record shows that the disputed domain name has been configured with active MX records and has been used in connection with email communications.<\/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 <arlafoodsco.com>.<\/span><\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n 1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark<\/p>\n The Complainant submits that it has established rights in the ARLA and ARLA FOODS trademarks by virtue of its registered trademark portfolio, which predates the registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name <arlafoodsco.com> incorporates its ARLA and ARLA FOODS trademarks in their entirety, with the addition of the term “co,” commonly understood as an abbreviation for “company.”<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that this addition is descriptive and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, as the ARLA and ARLA FOODS trademarks remain clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Complainant further relies on established UDRP practice, as reflected in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8<\/em>, according to which the addition of descriptive or non-distinctive terms does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity where the relevant trademark is otherwise recognizable.<\/p>\n The Complainant also notes that the generic Top-Level Domain “.com” is a standard registration requirement and is disregarded for the purpose of assessing confusing similarity.<\/p>\n On this basis, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ARLA and ARLA FOODS trademarks within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.<\/p>\n 2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name<\/p>\n The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Complainant states that it has not licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its ARLA or ARLA FOODS trademarks in any manner, including in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or owns any corresponding trademark rights.<\/p>\n The Complainant further contends that searches for the terms “arlafoodsco” or “arla foods co” return results exclusively related to the Complainant, and no evidence has been found linking the Respondent, identified as “Alfred Oberling,” to the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, this confirms that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Complainant also notes that the Respondent initially used a privacy service and that the disclosed registrant details include the address of the Complainant’s U.S. entity, which, in the Complainant’s view, indicates awareness of the Complainant and its business.<\/p>\n According to the Complainant, the structure of the disputed domain name—comprising the ARLA and ARLA FOODS trademarks together with the term “co”—reinforces the false impression that the disputed domain name is affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant. The Complainant emphasizes that it has long operated under the domain name <arlafoods.com>, and that the addition of “co” is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from its established online presence.<\/p>\n The Complainant relies on UDRP practice, as reflected in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1<\/em>, according to which domain names incorporating a complainant’s trademark may carry a high risk of implied affiliation and cannot constitute fair use where they suggest sponsorship or endorsement.<\/p>\n The Complainant further submits that the disputed domain name has not been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial purpose. Instead, the disputed domain name was used as part of a phishing and impersonation scheme targeting the Complainant’s business partners.<\/p>\n In particular, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent created email addresses under the disputed domain name impersonating employees of the Complainant and used them to communicate with third parties, including in connection with credit applications and requests for sensitive information. According to the Complainant, this conduct involved the unauthorized use of the Complainant’s name, corporate details, and employee identities, thereby misleading recipients into believing that the communications originated from the Complainant.<\/p>\n The Complainant submits that such use constitutes fraudulent activity and, in line with established UDRP practice (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1<\/em>), cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n 3. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith<\/p>\n The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name was registered many years after the Complainant’s ARLA and ARLA FOODS trademarks, which are well known and widely used worldwide. The Complainant contends that, given its global presence and online visibility, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its trademarks at the time of registration.<\/p>\n The Complainant further argues that the structure of the disputed domain name—incorporating the ARLA and ARLA FOODS trademarks together with the term “co”—demonstrates that the Respondent registered the domain name with the Complainant and its business in mind, with the intention of creating a likelihood of confusion as to affiliation or authorization.<\/p>\n The Complainant also notes that the Respondent used the address of the Complainant’s U.S. entity as its own registrant address, which, in its view, further evidences knowledge of the Complainant and its rights.<\/p>\n In addition, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name has been used as part of a phishing and impersonation scheme targeting the Complainant’s business partners. According to the Complainant, the Respondent configured the disputed domain name for email use and created email addresses impersonating employees of the Complainant, which were used to communicate with third parties and request sensitive information.<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that such conduct constitutes an intentional attempt to exploit the Complainant’s reputation and to mislead third parties for fraudulent purposes.<\/p>\n The Complainant further notes that, although the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website, it is configured with active MX records and has been used for deceptive email communications. According to the Complainant, the absence of an active website does not prevent a finding of bad faith where the domain name is used in connection with fraudulent activity.<\/p>\n The Complainant relies on established UDRP practice, according to which the use of a domain name for impersonation, phishing, or other deceptive practices constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4<\/em>).<\/p>\n Accordingly, the Complainant submits that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n Therefore, the Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it. <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/strong><\/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": [
"Barbora Donathová"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-04-28 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant, Arla Foods Amba<\/span>, is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the marks ARLA and ARLA FOODS in multiple jurisdictions worldwide.<\/p>\n These include, for example:<\/p>\n These trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name <arlafoodsco.com>.<\/p>\n The Complainant also operates domain names incorporating its ARLA mark, including <arlausa.com>, which it uses in connection with its business activities.<\/p>\n The Panel notes that the ARLA mark has been recognized in prior UDRP decisions as a well-known trademark.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"arlafoodsco.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n