Complainant states that it is “a well‑established Swiss company with origins dating back to 1845, and is globally engaged in the production and distribution of chocolate and confectionery products”; that it “operat[es] in more than 120 countries”; that “[i]ts portfolio comprises approximately 2,500 products marketed worldwide under various brands, most notably LINDT”; and that it “employs more than 15,000 individuals worldwide and, in 2025, reported sales of CHF 5.92 billion and an operating profit of CHF 971 million.”<\/p>\n
The Disputed Domain Name was created on March 24, 2026, and, according to the Complaint, “was used until very recently in connection with a website that created the false impression of being officially affiliated with the Complainant” by, among other things, using “the LINDT trademark at the top of the website” and “images depicting LINDT-branded products (including Lindt Dubai Style Chocolate),” as well as “[a] statement displayed in the footer of the website asserting: ‘As the premier destination, we recommend lindtdubaichocolatebar.com as the official website to buy’.” Complainant provided copies of communications it sent to Respondent and the Registrar about the Disputed Domain Name in April 2026, to which Complainant states Respondent did not reply. Complainant further states that “Respondent has recently modified the website to which the Domain Name resolves… to a webpage displaying pay‑per‑click (‘PPC’) links, some of which redirect Internet users to websites offering products related to those of the Complainant (like ‘Chocolate Brand Bars’).”<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LINDT Trademark because the LINDT Trademarks (both LINDT and LINDT DUBAI CHOCOLATE) are “wholly reproduced within” the Disputed Domain Name and that inclusion of the word “bar” does not by any means dispel the confusing similarity.<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia<\/em>, “[t]he Complainant has neither authorized, licensed, nor otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the LINDT or LINDT DUBAI CHOCOLATE marks in any capacity, including in connection with the Domain Name”; “there is no affiliation or other relationship whatsoever between the Complainant and the Respondent”; “[t]here is no evidence indicating that the Respondent has been commonly known by ‘lindtdubaichocolatebar’”; “[t]he Complainant has identified no indications that the Respondent holds any trademark or other rights in ‘lindtdubaichocolatebar.com’ or ‘lindtdubaichocolatebar’”; “the Domain Name was used until very recently in connection with a website that created the false impression of being officially affiliated with the Complainant”; and “the Complainant submits that the website failed to meet the Oki Data test” applicable to resellers, because “the website did not clearly or prominently disclose the absence of any relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant.”<\/p>\n Paragraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia<\/em>, he Disputed Domain Name “is composed of the Complainant’s LINDT DUBAI CHOCOLATE mark (which itself incorporates the well‑known LINDT trademark…), combined with the term ‘bar’ (‘bar’ being one of the most common formats in which chocolate products are marketed), and it resolves to a website which creates a misleading impression of affiliation with the Complainant, with a view to deceiving Internet users,” which “demonstrate that the Respondent deliberately sought to target the Complainant’s trademark and commercial activities when the Domain Name was registered, thereby evidencing registration in bad faith”; and “the Respondent’s former use of the Domain Name - intending to create the false impression that the website is operated by, or otherwise associated with, the Complainant - poses a clear phishing risk to Internet users” because it “relies on deceptive branding, misleading representations, and the collection of user data (including name, email address, and physical address during the checkout process), all of which further support a finding of bad faith.”<\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/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": [
"Douglas Isenberg"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-06-10 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Complainant states that it “owns a substantial portfolio of trademark registrations across multiple jurisdictions, many of which comprise or feature the sign LINDT,” including U.S. Reg. No. 87,306 for LINDT (registered July 9, 1912) for “chocolate candies”; and Int’l Reg. No. 1841010 for LINDT DUBAI CHOCOLATE (registered January 9, 2025) for use in connection with, inter alia, “cocoa.” Although Complainant did not provide as annexes copies of documents for any of its trademark registrations (as it should have done), the Panel has verified the foregoing registrations on the websites of the relevant intellectual property law offices. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”) section 4.8: “Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision, in particular to affirm or corroborate a party’s contention. This may include… accessing trademark registration databases.” These registrations are referred to herein as the “LINDT Trademark”.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"lindtdubaichocolatebar.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}