The Complainant is a Belgian company founded in 1926 that expanded internationally from the mid-20th century onwards. Today, the Complainant is recognized as one of the world's most prestigious luxury chocolate brands. Its products, which include pralines, truffles, chocolate gift boxes, biscuits, cocoa, coffee, and other gourmet chocolate products, are sold through grocery stores, specialty retailers, and online channels, as well as through approximately 200 company-owned boutiques and cafés across Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.<\/p>\n
The Complainant and its GODIVA-branded products have been extensively promoted and featured in articles published by leading online newspapers, including the Financial Times<\/em>. Furthermore, the Complainant maintains an active presence on major social media platforms, including Facebook, with more than 590,000 followers; Instagram, with more than 340,000 followers; X (formerly Twitter), with more than 44,000 followers; and YouTube, with more than 10,000 subscribers.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name was registered on 26 January 2026, allegedly by an individual located in Washington, DC. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website prominently displaying the Complainant's GODIVA trademark and offering purported GODIVA products for sale.<\/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": " The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n In particular, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its GODIVA mark. The disputed domain name is a misspelling of the GODIVA trademark, as it replaces the letter \"o\" in the trademark with the letter \"a\" and adds the letter \"s\" at the end. Such a minor typographical variation does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. <\/p>\n The Complainant further contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has neither authorised nor licensed the Respondent to use its GODIVA trademark, or any misspelling thereof, in any manner, including as part of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent does not appear to own any trademark registrations or pending trademark applications for the terms “gadiva” or “gadivas”. Accordingly, the Respondent cannot plausibly claim to have been commonly known by the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Respondent is not making a legitimate or fair use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, <\/p>\n The GODIVA mark long predates the registration of the disputed domain name and enjoys a substantial reputation in the confectionery industry. The disputed domain name is a misspelling of the Complainant's mark and has been used to divert users to the Respondent's website, leading them to believe that such website is operated by, affiliated with, or endorsed by the Complainant. While the disputed domain name is currently inactive, it previously resolved to a website prominently displaying the GODIVA mark and offering purported GODIVA products for sale at highly discounted prices. The website also displayed an address corresponding to the location of an official GODIVA store, thereby further reinforcing the false impression of legitimacy. The website contained no information indicating the absence of any relationship with the Complainant, nor did it include any disclaimer capable of dispelling user confusion. Accordingly, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in a manner that falsely suggests an affiliation with the Complainant. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor can it be regarded as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Lastly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant's mark enjoys widespread recognition. The disputed domain name incorporates an obvious misspelling of that mark. The deliberate registration of a typo-variant of the GODIVA mark strongly indicates that the Respondent had the Complainant and its GODIVA mark in mind at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. This conclusion is reinforced by the content previously displayed on the Respondent's website. According to the Complainant, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name specifically to target the Complainant, which is clear evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The disputed domain name was registered and used to create an association with the Complainant and to derive commercial gain from advertisement and offering for sale of purported GODIVA products. Accordingly, the Respondent clearly intended to divert Internet users away from the Complainant's official website to the website associated with the disputed domain name. The fact that the Respondent used on its website an address corresponding to that of an official GODIVA store and offered purported GODIVA products at substantially reduced prices further exacerbates the disruption caused to the Complainant's business. Moreover, to the extent that the products offered through the Respondent's website were counterfeit, the Respondent's conduct also gives rise to significant consumer protection as well as health and safety concerns.<\/p>\n <\/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": [
"Angelica Lodigiani"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-08-03 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of a large portfolio of GODIVA trademarks, registered in various jurisdictions worldwide, including the following:<\/p>\n - GODIVA (word), EU registration No. 000184622, registered on 25 September 1998, for goods in classes 29, 30 and 33;<\/p>\n - GODIVA Belgium 1926 (word and device), EU registration No. 018755679, registered on 23 December 2022, for goods in class 30.<\/p>\n The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <godiva.eu>, which it uses as its main website, to promote and sell the GODIVA products. <\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"gadivas.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}