The Complainant is dm-drogerie markt GmbH + Co. KG, a German chain of retail stores founded in 1973 and offering cosmetics, healthcare items, household products and health food and drinks. The Complainant is the largest retailer in the cosmetics and healthcare items in Germany, but operates in 12 European countries in total, with an alleged significant market exposure in Austria, Hungary and Czechia. The Complainant possesses a number of trademarks under which it commercializes specific product lines. These include “BABYLOVE” (diapers), “ALVERDE” (cosmetics) and “BALEA” (cosmetics).<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names, all registered on July 17, 2025, each redirect the Internet user to a website impersonating a Complainant webstore matching the trademark reproduced in each particular domain name.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/strong><\/p>\n The websites associated to the disputed domain names cause consumer confusion as to the affiliation of the websites with the Complainant, leading to the conclusion that the disputed domain names are being used for infringing and fraudulent purposes. <\/p>\n According to WHOIS data communicated by the registrar, the Respondent is yudongdong dongdong. Nothing further is known to the Complainant about the activities of the Respondent.<\/p>\n The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. The following demonstrates this in turn regarding each of the disputed domain names:<\/p>\n <alverdede.com> - This disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark “ALVERDE” (wordmark), registered in Germany on March 21, 2007 under the number 30677947 for goods and services in Nice classes 3, 5, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25. This disputed domain fully reproduces the “ALVERDE” mark and adds the letters \"de\". Given that the landing site of the website is in German, it seems safe to assume that \"de\" is a reference to Germany as geographical area.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n <balea-de.com> - This disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark “BALEA” (wordmark), registered in Germany on March 9, 2011 under the number 302011005007 for goods and services in Nice classes 18, 3, 5, 8, 21, 24, 25, 26, 32. This disputed domain fully reproduces the “BALEA” mark and adds the letters \"de\". Given that the landing site of the website is in German, it seems safe to assume that \"de\" is a reference to Germany as geographical area.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n <babylove-de.com> - This disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark “BABYLOVE” (figurative mark), registered in Germany on November 22, 2019 under the number 302019113481 for goods and services in Nice classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32. The Complainant notes that prior panels deciding under the Policy have consistently held the comparison between a disputed domain name and a complainant's registered trademarks to be limited to those elements of the registered mark that can be represented in a domain name (i.e. the alpha-numeric elements). The only element of the Complainant's “BABYLOVE” trademark that can be represented in a domain name is the word \"babylove\", which this disputed domain reproduces in its entirety, save for the letters \"de\". Given that the landing site of the website is in German, it seems safe to assume that \"de\" is a reference to Germany as geographical area.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n Lastly, the Complainant points out that the .com ending must be disregarded when assessing confusing similarity.<\/p>\n Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names<\/p>\n First, the Complainant is not aware of any element of evidence under which the Respondent being commonly known by the disputed domain names. The name of the Respondent is yudongdong dongdong, which bears no resemblance to the disputed domain names, and the possibility of the Respondent being known by the disputed domain names is rendered even more unlikely by the fact that the Respondent utilises a WHOIS protection service.<\/p>\n Second, the use made of the disputed domain names is manifestly illegitimate. As mentioned, the disputed domain names are all used to redirect Internet users to websites (on the domain loitershop.com) impersonating the Complainant's brands in that they are likely to cause consumer confusion due to the prominent use of the trademarks and, on the majority of the websites, their associated logos. This constitutes diversion of consumers through clearly infringing activity, which can never give rise to legitimate rights or interests for the Respondent, see WIPO Overview 3.0 at 2.13.1. Please see our discussion below regarding the third policy element for details regarding the bad faith nature of the websites displayed.<\/p>\n The disputed domain names are registered and used in bad faith<\/p>\n First, the disputed domain names were all registered on July 17, 2025, at a time when the Complainant's trademark rights to the trademarks being referenced in the domain names were already clearly established (as mentioned above in our discussion regarding the second policy element, the latest of the trademarks being referenced having been registered in November 2019, almost 6 years before the registration of the disputed domain names). The fact that, as mentioned, the disputed domain names are used to display Germany-targeting websites that furthermore impersonate the Complainant's brands suggests that the Respondent was keenly aware of the Complainant's rights when registering the disputed domains.<\/p>\n Second, the disputed domain names have not been used for any other purpose than to display websites impersonating the Complainant's brands. That the websites are engaged in impersonation is made evident by the fact that the Complainant's brand-specific logos are clearly displayed in the upper left-hand corner of the websites, sometimes combined with the Complainant's corporate logo (stylized \"dm\" in blue underlined in red and yellow). Given that the prominent use of the Complainant's logos and the absence of any other source identifier the websites displayed are clearly likely to confuse visitors as to origin. This is a clearly infringing use of the disputed domain names that cannot give rise to rights or interests for the Respondent and is manifestly evidence of bad faith registration and use.<\/p>\n Third, the Complainant submits that the fact that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names all targeting the Complainant's trademarks demonstrates a pattern of conduct of preventing the Complainant from reflecting their marks in domain names. Prior panels deciding under the Policy have found such a pattern of conduct to exist where more than one, but as few as two instances domain name registration targeting the same, or a different, trademark owner. The Respondent's conduct in registering the disputed domains is in excess of this standard.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the Complainant considers it beyond any reasonable doubt that the Respondent has both registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.<\/p>\n RESPONDENT <\/strong><\/p>\n No administratively compliant Response was filed.<\/p>",
"rights": " To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain names, as described below, are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, as described below (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown the disputed domain names, as described below, 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 Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP have been met, and there is no other reason why it would be unsuitable to provide the Decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Rodolfo Rivas Rea"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-06-17 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Trademark “ALVERDE”, registered in Germany on March 21, 2007 under the number 30677947.<\/p>\n Trademark “BALEA”, registered in Germany on March 9, 2011 under the number 302011005007.<\/p>\n Trademark “BABYLOVE”, registered in Germany on November 22, 2019 under the number 302019113481.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"alverdede.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"balea-de.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"babylove-de.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n