Complainant, Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG, with domicile Kilchberg in Switzerland, founded in 1845, is a well-known Swiss chocolate manufacturer and the holding company of the Lindt & Sprüngli Group, a global leader in the premium chocolate category. The Group produces high-quality chocolates at 12 production sites in Europe and the United States, with products sold through 41 subsidiaries and branch offices, around 650 of its own stores, and a global network of approximately 100 distributors. With around 15,500 employees, the Group reported sales of CHF 5.92 billion in 2025. Over the years, Complainant has expanded its brand portfolio abroad and acquired chocolate businesses including Hofbauer and Küfferle (1994), Caffarel (1997), Ghirardelli (1998), and Russell Stover (2014). Further details regarding Complainant’s brands, history and locations are enclosed to the Complaint by means of a printout of the website’s company information page.<\/p>\n
The Ghirardelli Chocolate Company (‘Ghirardelli’) became part of the Lindt & Sprüngli Group in 1998. Founded in 1852, Ghirardelli is one of the oldest chocolate companies in the United States and is headquartered in California. In FY 2024, Ghirardelli generated sales of approximately USD 888 million. Its products are sold through its own stores, retail partners and wholesale distributors. Further details regarding Ghirardelli’s history and the channels through which its confectionery products are sold are provided in the Complaint by means of a website’s company information page as well.<\/p>\n
Complainant advertises and sells its confectionery products to consumers online through its official website at www.ghirardelli.com<\/a>, which domain name was registered in 1998 as can be concluded by the enclosure to the Complaint. In addition to <ghirardelli.com>, Complainant maintains a portfolio of domain names incorporating the GHIRARDELLI mark across various generic and country-code Top-Level Domains, including <ghirardelli.online>, <ghirardelli.us>, <ghirardelli.com.mx> and <ghirardelli.ca>. Further, Complainant’s GHIRARDELLI brand enjoys a substantial social media presence, including approximately 1.3 million followers on Facebook (https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Ghirardelli\/)<\/a> and over 44 thousand followers on LinkedIn (https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/ghirardelli-chocolate-company)<\/a>. <\/p>\n Moreover, Complainant’s GHIRARDELLI offerings are frequently featured in lists collating the most popular chocolate brands in the world. Print outs of listings are enclosed to the Complaint.<\/p>\n Lastly, Complainant mentions that it has successfully enforced its rights in the GHIRARDELLI trademark in multiple previous domain name dispute proceedings and mentions 5 example decisions.<\/p>\n Respondent, Wesley Neal with domicile Oak Hill, United States, registered the disputed domain name <ghirardelliiofficial.com> on 28 August 2026. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a ‘SSL Handshake failed’ error page. However, before the current takedown page it resolved to a webpage offering GHIRARDELLI chocolates. The website, according to Complainant, was clearly impersonating Complainant by presenting itself as an official GHIRARDELLI online store. The disputed website showed Complainant’s GHIRARDELLI logo and images of GHIRARDELLI-branded products, which were offered at discounted prices. Further, Internet users were encouraged to select products, add them to a shopping cart, and proceed to a checkout page that requested personal and financial information, including their full name, postal address, telephone number, e-mail address and payment card details.<\/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": " Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it. According to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) it needs first to be established that:<\/p>\n (i)The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; <\/em><\/p>\n According to Complainant the disputed domain name <ghirardelliiofficial.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GHIRARDELLI mark. It comprises a misspelling of the mark, formed by the addition of an extra ‘i’, followed by the descriptive term ‘official’, while leaving the GHIRARDELLI mark readily recognizable within the domain name.<\/p>\n The generic Top-Level Domain ‘.com’ is a standard registration requirement and is disregarded for purposes of the first-element comparison.<\/p>\n In this respect Complainant also refers to CAC-UDRP-108917 (2026)<\/a> (<ghirardelii.shop>):<\/p>\n As a matter of fact, <ghiradelii.shop> is a misspelling of the GHIRARDELLI trademarks which are clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. According to a consolidated case law if the trademark is entirely comprised in the disputed domain name or if it is recognizable within the domain name, the threshold requested by the First element of the Policy is met.<\/em><\/p>\n And<\/p>\n CAC-UDRP-108648 (2026)<\/a> <ghirardelliusmall.com> et al. in which the panel found domain names incorporating the GHIRARDELLI mark together with the additional terms ‘us’, ‘mall’ and ‘shop’ to be confusingly similar, holding that those additions did not distinguish the domain names or prevent a finding of confusing similarity.<\/p>\n Accordingly, Complainant requests that the Panel finds the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the GHIRARDELLI mark, in which Complainant has rights, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.<\/p>\n The Panel agrees with this assertion of Complainant, which is sufficiently explained and according to current case law.<\/p>\n Further, the trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name and thus the trademark rights prevail.<\/p>\n 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 Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " According to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii) it needs further to be established that:<\/p>\n (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.<\/p>\n Paragraph 4 (c) of the Policy provides circumstances that could demonstrate that Respondent has no rights to and legitimate interests in the Domain Name. These circumstances are not exclusive. Circumstance that are providing rights or legitimate interests to the domain name are:<\/p>\n (i) before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or<\/p>\n (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if though it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or<\/p>\n (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.<\/p>\n Further, according to the WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d. d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If Respondent fails to do so, Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Complainant submits that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant explains it as follows:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Complainant concludes that it has presented a prima facie <\/em>case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n The Panel has the following findings.<\/p>\n In case where a website only offers products that are branded with the trademark that is entailed in the domain name, there might be a resellers website at stake, and when so there is a legitimate reason for using Complainant’s trademark. However, the reseller must comply with criteria as set down in the OKI Data test, which are further developed in the Lost Mary Direct case CAC-UDRP-107605.<\/p>\n In the current case of the disputed domain name the application of the Lost Mary Direct Criteria needs a pretest caused by the disputed domain name itself containing a misspelling. A misspelling in a domain name is a frequent indication of typo squatting and thus cannot be considered as having a legitimate interest in the domain name but rather should be seen as a domain name that is registered and\/or used in bad faith.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, for the sake of being complete, the Panel applies the Revised Oki Data criteria (Lost Mary Direct criteria) being:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 4. Respondent must also not try to corner the market in domain names that reflect the trademark.<\/p>\n Like Complainant stated, the Panel concludes the website of the disputed domain name fails in criterium 3 of the test: the website cannot be distinguished from the original one as it uses the trademark of Complainant as a badge of origin, it has copied the copyright notice from Complainant’s website and it has the same look and feel of the website of Complainant. Further no indication whatsoever to inform about the reseller’s origin is depicted on the website. <\/p>\n Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Oki Data criteria as further developed by the Lost Mary Direct criteria do not qualify Respondent as a legitimate reseller and thus the disputed domain name lacks legitimate interests.<\/p>\n Complainant has further shown that Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain name through enclosing several searches to this Complaint. Therefore, the Panel can conclude.<\/p>\n Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown 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": " According to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) it finally needs to be established that:<\/p>\n (iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n Paragraph 4 (b) of the Policy provides circumstances on that demonstrate that Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith. These circumstances are not exclusive.<\/p>\n Those circumstances are for example:<\/p>\n (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or<\/p>\n (ii) Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or<\/p>\n (iii) Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or<\/p>\n (iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to it’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Complainant has demonstrated that it has accrued substantial goodwill and recognition in the GHIRARDELLI brand, which has been used to distinguish its chocolate offerings for over a century. Ghirardelli became part of the Lindt & Sprüngli Group in 1998 and has since formed part of its global portfolio of premium chocolate brands. In FY 2024, Ghirardelli alone generated sales of approximately USD 888 million, underscoring its position as one of the leading chocolate companies in the United States. Complainant also holds numerous trademark registrations for the GHIRARDELLI mark across multiple jurisdictions, long predating the disputed domain name’s 2026 registration.<\/p>\n Complainant further states that the renown of the GHIRARDELLI mark has been recognized in prior UDRP decisions. See, e.g.,<\/p>\n Complainant further highlights that its GHIRARDELLI mark is readily identifiable in publicly accessible trademark databases (e.g., TMview). Additionally, a basic Google search for ‘ghirardelliiofficial’ is interpreted by Google as a search for ‘ghirardelli official’ and returns top results clearly pertaining to Complainant and its GHIRARDELLI-branded offerings.<\/p>\n Even the most minimal due diligence would therefore have alerted any registrant of the disputed domain name to Complainant’s rights in the well-known GHIRARDELLI mark.<\/p>\n The composition of the disputed domain name itself further supports the inference that Respondent deliberately targeted Complainant’s GHIRARDELLI trademark at the time of registration. Respondent’s registration of <ghirardelliiofficial.com> – combining a misspelling of Complainant’s mark, achieved merely by adding an additional ‘i’, with the term ‘official’ – constitutes typosquatting, conduct which is according to<\/p>\n WIPO Case No. D2002-1011 (<minorleaugebaseball.com>:<\/p>\n ‘inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith’<\/em>.<\/p>\n Complainant continues by stating that the additional letter is visually unobtrusive and readily liable to be overlooked, while the term ‘official’ expressly suggests that the disputed domain name belongs to, or is authorized by, Complainant.<\/p>\n Moreover, this deliberate combination cannot credibly be regarded as coincidental or neutral; rather, it evidences Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant and an intention to exploit the goodwill attaching to its trademark by creating a misleading impression of source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement.<\/p>\n Therefore, the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith according to Complainant.<\/p>\n As for the use of the disputed domain name, according to Complainant, Respondent’s conduct falls squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy:<\/p>\n and thus constitutes bad faith use of the disputed domain name. <\/p>\n Complainant substantiates this assertion through the following: <\/p>\n Complainant here cites two earlier decisions:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Furthermore, Respondent has used the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LINDT mark, to attract users familiar with Complainant to a site which impersonates Complainant. This use reflects Respondent’s intention to derive commercial gain from confused internet users who, believing they are interacting with a site controlled\/authorised by Complainant, attempt to purchase the site’s purported offerings. Panels have consistently held that a respondent’s use of a domain name to impersonate a complainant (or pass off as such) is evidence of bad faith registration and use under the Policy.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
"rights": "\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Also see, for example:
\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n