{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108911", "time_of_filling": "2026-08-06 13:43:01", "domain_names": [ "lactalis-us.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Groupe Lactalis" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Lactalis USA (Lactalis USA)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

 A. <\/span><\/strong>Complainant's Factual Allegations<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Founded in 1933, the Complainant is a French multi-national company, engaged in the food industry, particularly the dairy sector. It has been operating under the name “Lactalis” since 1999. It is the largest dairy products group in the world, with over 85,500 employees, 266 production sites, and a presence in 49 countries.<\/span><\/p>\n

B. Respondent's Factual Allegations<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has consequently made no factual allegations. The Respondent is Lactalis USA, based at the address of Free town, Alabama, Alabama, Postal Code 35004, United States. The disputed domain name was registered on May 6, 2026 by the Respondent and<\/span> is inactive.<\/span><\/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": "

A. COMPLAINANT <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's contentions can be summarized as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n

I. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant's trademark in its entirety. The addition of the geographical term “US” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark LACTALIS. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark LACTALIS. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and domain names associated. On the contrary, it worsens the likelihood of confusion, as this term refers to the Complainant’s activities in the United States via its subsidiary LACTALIS USA. <\/span><\/p>\n

II. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the grounds: i) the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not related in any way to its business. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent; ii) neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark LACTALIS or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant; iii) the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page. The Respondent did not use the disputed domain name or has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name; iv) the Respondent failed to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

III. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith on the grounds: i) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark LACTALIS, which was already well known and protected in several countries at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and reputation, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark LACTALIS; ii) the addition of the geographical term \"US\" to the Complainant’s trademark cannot be coincidental and worsens the likelihood of confusion, as these terms refer to the Complainant's activities in the United States, via its subsidiary LACTALIS USA; iii) the disputed domain name points to an inactive page. As prior WIPO UDRP Panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/span><\/p>\n

B. RESPONDENT<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/span><\/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": [ "Yunze Lian" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-09-08 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant has provided evidence of its ownership of registered trademark rights in the trademark LACTALIS in numerous jurisdictions:<\/span><\/p>\n