The Complainant, Arla Foods, is a big dairy company and a cooperative owned by more than 12,500 dairy farmers, which was established in 2000 by a merger and operates worldwide.<\/p>\n
The Complainant holds several trademark registrations for “ARLA” and “ARLA FOODS” going back to 2000 and the Complainant also holds the domain names bearing “ARLA” and “ARLA FOODS” registered even before 2000.<\/p>\n
In addition, it was also stated that Arla Foods Ingredients Group P\/S that is a fully owned subsidiary of the Complainant and is responsible for the Complainant’s global ingredients business, owns the domain name <arlafoodsingredients.com> (registered 16 March 2000), which is used in connection with official business activities and online presence, including providing information about ARLA-branded ingredients products and services.<\/p>\n
On January 27, 2026; the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <arlafoodsingrendients.com>. The disputed domain name is currently inactive.<\/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:<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s formerly registered distinctive trademarks, as it bears the Complainant’s “ARLA” and “ARLA FOODS” trademarks as a whole with the addition of the descriptive term “ingredients”, which would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Moreover, it is claimed that it directly refers to the Complainant’s ingredients business. The Complainant’s “ARLA” and “ARLA FOODS” trademarks are claimed to remain clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant referred to a previous panel decision, where it was held that that a domain name incorporating the ARLA trademark together with the generic term “foodingredients” was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark (see Arla Foods amba v. Ho Nim, WIPO Case No. D2010-0157). The circumstances of the present case are claimed to be highly similar, as the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s “ARLA” and “ARLA FOODS” trademarks in combination with the same descriptive wording, differing only by the misspelling of the word “ingredients” by adding a letter “n” between the letters “e” and “d”, which is immaterial and does not dispel confusing similarity.<\/p>\n
The Complainant refers to earlier decisions and claims that the top level domain “.com” is standard registration requirement <\/span>and will be disregarded, so the domain name remains confusingly similar despite its inclusion.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain name as the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name and as the Respondent does not hold any trademark or domain name with “arlafoodsingrendients” and “arla foods ingrendients”<\/span>.<\/p>\n The Complainant also states that the Respondent is neither affiliated nor authorized by the Complainant in any way and neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademarks “ARLA”.<\/p>\n Lastly, the Respondent has attempted to conceal their identity through the use of a privacy shield, which obscures part of the Whois data. Moreover, the registration details provided in the Notice of Registrant Information appear potentially misleading or fabricated. For example, the address “4847 Medical Center Drive, Sarasota, FL 34236” does not exist as an official or recognized postal address in Sarasota, Florida, indicating it is likely invalid. Additionally, the contact e-mail, mannyalves.highlinerfoods@gmail.com, references the name “Manny Alves,” which does not correspond to the registrant name “John Ryan” listed in the Notice of Registrant Information. These discrepancies are claimed to strongly suggest that the Respondent deliberately provided false information to obscure their true identity, further demonstrating a lack of legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is being passively held and it does not resolve to an active website. There is no evidence showing that the Respondent has been using, or preparing to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Complainant claims that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name many years after the first registrations of the Complainant’s “ARLA” and “ARLA FOODS” trademarks. The Complainant states that “ARLA” is a well-known trademark, as previously held by UDRP panels. It is claimed that by conducting a simple online search regarding the terms “arlafoodsingrendients”, “and “arla foods ingrendients”<\/span>, the Respondent would have inevitably learned about the Complainant, its trademark and business. <\/p>\n The Complainant also points out that the structure of the disputed domain name as incorporating in its second-level portion the Complainant’s ARLA and ARLA FOODS trademarks together with a misspelling of term “ingredients” shows that the Respondent registered the dispute domain name having the Complainant and its ARLA and ARLA FOODS trademarks in mind, and reflects the Respondent’s clear intention to create an association, and a consequent likelihood of confusion, with the Complainant’s trademarks in the minds of Internet users. It is claimed that by reading the disputed domain name, Internet users may reasonably believe that it is directly connected to, or authorized by, the Complainant.<\/p>\n The Complainant also again emphasizes that the Respondent has attempted to conceal their identity through the use of a privacy shield, which obscures part of the Whois data. Moreover, the registration details provided in the Notice of Registrant Information appear potentially misleading or fabricated. For example, the address “4847 Medical Center Drive, Sarasota, FL 34236” does not exist as an official or recognized postal address in Sarasota, Florida (Annex 12), indicating it is likely invalid. Additionally, the contact e-mail, mannyalves.highlinerfoods@gmail.com, references the name “Manny Alves,” which does not correspond to the registrant name “John Ryan” listed in the Notice of Registrant Information. These discrepancies strongly suggest that the Respondent deliberately provided false information to obscure their true identity. The Complainant also referred to past panel decisions, where inaccurate or false contact details were seen as reinforcing a finding of bad faith registration (see CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service \/ Jasna Knezevic, WIPO Case No. D2013-0564, and Ebay Inc. v. Wangming, WIPO Case No. D2006-1107).<\/p>\n The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name has not been using by the Respondent and the passive holding of the disputed domain name demonstrates the bad faith of the Respondent.<\/p>\n It must be mentioned here that the Complainant stated that a cease-and-desist letter was sent to the Respondent on 4 March 2026, via the registrant contact form and via the abuse email of the Registrar, requesting the latter to forward the communication to the Respondent. The letter informed the Registrant of the abusive registration of the domain name and requesting its transfer to the Complainant. The Complainant sent further reminders which remained unanswered.<\/span><\/p>\n Accordingly, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/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": [
"Mrs Selma Ünlü"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-05-15 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the trademarks bearing “ARLA”, inter alia<\/em>, the following:<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain names bearing the signs “ARLA” and “ARLA FOODS” such as the domain names <arla.com> (registered on July 15, 1996), <arla.eu> (registered on June 1, 2006), <arlafoods.com> (registered on October 1, 1999), <arla-ingredients.com.ar> (registered on March 22, 2012) and <arlafoods-group.com> (registered on February 5, 2021).<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"arlafoodsingrendients.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
\n
\n
\n