Complainant No. 1 is a Swiss enterprise founded in 1845 that has established itself as one of the world's foremost producers of premium chocolate. During more than 180 years of continuous operation, it has built a significant international footprint, comprising 12 production sites, more than 600 branded stores, and a distribution network supported by over 100 independent partners worldwide. It employs in excess of 15,000 people and, in 2025, achieved sales of CHF 5.92 billion together with operating profits of CHF 971 million. Its products are available in more than 120 countries and encompass approximately 2,500 items marketed under several well known brands, including LINDT, GHIRARDELLI, and RUSSELL STOVER. The Complainant reported sales of CHF 5.47 billion in 2024. <\/p>\n
Complainant No. 2 is a Swiss non-profit foundation established by Complainant No. 1 to promote knowledge, innovation, and public engagement in relation to chocolate through the LINDT HOME OF CHOCOLATE, a distinctive museum and center of excellence devoted to Swiss Chocolate. The LINDT HOME OF CHOCOLATE is located at the Complainants' headquarters in Kilchberg, Switzerland. Since opening its doors in 2020, the museum has become one of the country's most popular cultural attractions, welcoming hundreds of thousands of visitors annually and exceeding one million visitors overall. The facility offers an immersive experience dedicated to the heritage, craftsmanship, and traditions of Swiss chocolate through seven interactive exhibition spaces, a tasting area, one of the world's largest chocolate fountains, and the largest Lindt Chocolate Shop worldwide. The remarkable success and international visibility of the Lindt Home of Chocolate further enhance the goodwill, reputation, and recognition associated with the Complainants and the LINDT brand.<\/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": "
COMPLAINANTS:<\/p>\n
The Complainants contend that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainants explain that the disputed domain name currently does not resolve to an active website. This is solely the result of the takedown action initiated by the Complainants. Prior to the takedown, the Domain Name was used in connection with a website that misleadingly conveyed the impression of being affiliated with, authorized by, or operated on behalf of the Second Complainant.<\/p>\n Further, in specific: <\/p>\n 1. the website previously associated with the Domain Name closely replicated the appearance and content of the Second Complainant's official website, reproducing identical or substantially similar elements, including the background video, page structure, headings, photographs, textual content, typography, and distinctive Lindt Home of Chocolate branding; and<\/p>\n 2. the website further featured a purported ticket-booking process through which users were invited to select a date of visit, an entry time, and a ticket category before being redirected to a page requesting personal information, including their full name, email address, and telephone number.<\/p>\n Complainants noted that the website to which the disputed domain name resolved falsely claimed to provide reservations to the official Lindt Home of Chocolate Museum. Such use cannot be regarded as legitimate. Rather, it was inherently deceptive and carried a substantial risk of collecting users' personal data under false pretences, potentially enabling its misuse for fraudulent purposes.<\/p>\n Complainants further state that the disputed domain name <lindt-home-chocolate.com> incorporate the LINDT and MUSEUM trademarks and the word “Chocolate” which references the Complainants‘ separate but related entities. This juxtaposing of the Complainant’s LINDT trademark with the descriptive term ‘chocolate’ and the TLD ‘.com’, creates a high risk of implied affiliation and cannot constitute fair use.<\/p>\n In addition, the Complainants contend that they have no business relationship with Respondent and have not granted it permission to incorporate Complainants’ marks in the disputed domain name. Further, the Complainant states that Respondent and registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n The Complainant’s conclude that taken as a whole, the above circumstances leave little room for any good-faith explanation for the Respondent's conduct. The Complainants therefore maintain that the disputed domain name was deliberately registered to capitalize on the Complainants' trademark rights and subsequently used in a manner that further evidences bad faith, thus fulfilling the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n The Respondent has not appeared formally or informally to controvert the evidence submitted by the Complainant.<\/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": [
"Gerald Levine Ph.D, Esq."
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-08-20 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " There are two related but corporately distinct Complainants in this proceeding. The first complainant is Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprungli AG (hereafter referred to as Complainant No. 1). The second Complainant is Lindt Chocolate Competence Foundation (hereafter referred to as Complainant No. 2). Each in its own capacity holds many trademarks.<\/p>\n Complainant No. 1 holds trademarks for the term LINDT, covering numerous jurisdictions around the world, including Germany, the United States, Canada. In Germany, its registration is No. 91037 dated 27\/09\/1906 and in Switzerland Registration No. 2P-349150 dated 29\/10\/1986 in Class 30. <\/p>\n Complainant No. 2 holds trademarks for the terms LINDT HOME OF CHOCOLATE and HOME OF CHOCOLATE in Switzerland and China. Specifically for Switzerland its registration is No. 711339 dated 28 Dec 2017 in Classes 16, 25, 28, 29, 30, 35, 41, 43. <\/p>\n CONSOLIDATION: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS<\/p>\n The Complainants have petitioned to have their claims consolidated into a single proceeding for the evident reason that they share a clear and specific common grievance against the Respondent. Specifically, the Respondent registered <lindt-home-chocolate.com> on June 23, 2026, which incorporates the LINDT mark in full and the HOME OF CHOCOLATE and LINDT HOME OF CHOCOLATE marks almost in their entirety. <\/p>\n The Complainants jointly assert that the composition of the disputed domain name and the Respondent's use of it affects both Complainants in an equivalent manner. Moreover, the Complainants say, the consolidation of the present proceeding would be fair and equitable to all parties. <\/p>\n Complainant No. 2 is a Swiss non-profit foundation established by Complainant No. 1, and the factual background and legal issues underlying this dispute are substantially identical for both of them, thereby justifying the filing of a single complaint in respect of the disputed domain name. A consolidated proceeding they say would also promote procedural efficiency, ensuring that the Respondent receives proper notice and a full opportunity to present their arguments in one unified case rather than in multiple proceedings based on the same facts and issues, without any prejudice to its rights and while reducing unnecessary time and costs.<\/p>\n In support of this request for consolidation, they cite an earlier case CAC-UDRP-107625 involving the same Complainants, where the disputed domain name was comparable to the Domain Name in the present proceeding and the issue of consolidating the Complainants was specifically addressed by the panel: <\/p>\n The Complainants assert a specific common grievance against the Respondent, who has registered the domain names <lilndt-home-of-chocolate.com> and <lindtmuseumtickets.com> in a manner which targets both Complainants' trademarks. The domain names incorporate confusingly similar variations of the marks and have resolved to the same, identical\/near identical websites, falsely suggesting an affiliation with the Complainants. The use of terms such as 'home of chocolate' and 'museum tickets' is particularly misleading given the Second Complainant's operation of the Lindt Home of Chocolate Museum.<\/p>\n This Panel is in agreement with the Complainants and accepts, not for efficiency alone but also that it makes common sense, to consolidate the proceedings. See Cantor Fitzgerald Securities, Cantor Index Limited v. Mark Mark, Chen Xian Sheng\/Whois Protect, WIPO Claim No. D2014-0125 in which the Panel consolidated on a finding that “[t]he Complainants established that they both belong to the Cantor Fitzgerald Group commonly introducing themselves and their services by <cantor.com> to the Internet users.\" <\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"lindt-home-chocolate.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}