As the Respondent did not file any response to the complaint, the Panel took into account the following facts asserted by the Complainant (and supported by the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant) and unchallenged by the Respondent:
(a) The Complainant is one of the largest supermarket chains in Europe, operating more than 12,600 stores. Currently, its stores are primarily located in Europe and the United States.<\/p>\n
(b) The Complainant is the owner of the Complainant’s Trademarks.<\/p>\n
(c) The disputed domain name was registered on 30 May 2026. It does not resolve to any active website. Only a default placeholder page of the hosting provider (“Something amazing will be constructed here...”) is displayed.<\/p>\n
(d) The disputed domain name is used for a fraudulent phishing scheme directed at prospective suppliers of the Complainant. On 21 July 2026, an email was sent to a German company in the name of “Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG”, i.e. in the name of the Complainant. The email purports to originate from the Complainant’s purchasing department and is signed by a “Michael Schneider, Stellvertretender Einkaufsleiter & Koordinator für Lieferantenregistrierung” (Deputy Head of Purchasing and Coordinator for Supplier Registration) – a person who does not exist within the Complainant’s organization. The email reproduces the Complainant’s genuine postal address and refers to the Complainant’s official website www.lidl.de. Recipients are invited to take part in an alleged supplier registration process (“LIDL DEUTSCHLAND: REGISTRIERUNGSPROZESS FÜR HÄNDLER UND LIEFERANTEN”), to provide a company profile and to reply to the address info@lidl-lieferant.com – an email address under the disputed domain name.<\/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: THE RESPONDENT: 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 Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\"<\/span>UDRP<\/strong>\" or \"<\/span>Policy<\/strong>\")<\/span>).<\/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": [
"Michal Matějka"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-10-01 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks for the denomination \"LIDL\":<\/p>\n Register<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Type<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n No.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Date<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Classes<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Countries<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n EUIPO<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Word<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 001778679<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 22.08.2002<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42<\/p>\n<\/td>\n EU<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n EUIPO<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Fig.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 013192752<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 27.02.2015<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44<\/p>\n<\/td>\n EU<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n DPMA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Word<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 2006134<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 11.11.1991<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 29, 3, 5, 8, 11, 16, 18, 21, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33<\/p>\n<\/td>\n DE<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n DPMA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Word<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 30009606<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 09.03.2000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 35, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 39, 41, 42<\/p>\n<\/td>\n DE<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n WIPO<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Word<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 1541701<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 30.01.2020<\/p>\n <\/p>\n<\/td>\n 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44<\/p>\n<\/td>\n AU, CO, ID, KH, KR, MX, MY, NZ, SG, TM, US, AL, BA, BY, EG, IR, KG, KZ, ME, MK, RU, TJ, UA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n WIPO<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Fig.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 1537891<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 30.01.2020<\/p>\n <\/p>\n<\/td>\n 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44<\/p>\n<\/td>\n AU, CO, ID, KH, KR, MX, MY, NZ, SG, TM, US, AL, BA, BY, IR, KG, KZ, ME, MK, RU, TJ, UA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n (“Complainant’s Trademarks<\/strong>”)<\/p>\n The disputed domain name <lidl-lieferant.com> was registered on 30 May 2026.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"lidl-lieferant.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
In addition to the above stated factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following:
(i) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks as addition of generic term or descriptive terms such as as ‘\"lieferant\" (meaning \"Supplier\" in German language) to the disputed domain name does diminish confusing similarity.
(ii) The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized by it in any way to use Complainant’s Trademarks. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. There is no website under the disputed domain name and no indication of preparation for its use was established in these proceedings. Moreover, the disputed domain name has been used for fraudulent (phishing) activites, which clearly contradicts any legitimate interest of the Respondent. Therefore, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/span>.
(iii) Complainant’s Trademarks are well-known, and there is no conceivable use that could be made of the disputed domain name that would not amount to an infringement of the Complainant’s trade mark rights. Moreover, the disputed domain name has been used for fraudulent (phishing) activities hence clearly in bad faith by the Respondent.<\/span><\/p>\n
The Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint.<\/p>",
"rights": "\n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n