{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-109051", "time_of_filling": "2026-10-05 16:41:28", "domain_names": [ "ghirardellis.shop" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG" ], "complainant_representative": "SILKA AB", "respondent": [ "Bathrick Tracy" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a Swiss company with a history dating back to 1845. It is one of the world’s leading manufacturers of premium chocolate products. It conducts business in approximately 120 countries, employs approximately 15,500 people and reported sales exceeding CHF 5.92 billion in 2025. Its portfolio includes the LINDT and GHIRARDELLI brands.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Ghirardelli Chocolate Company was established in San Francisco in 1852 and joined the Complainant’s corporate group in 1998. GHIRARDELLI branded products are distributed in the United States through company operated stores, retail partners, wholesale channels, and online through the official website at www.ghirardelli.com. In 2024, the GHIRARDELLI brand generated sales of approximately USD 888 million.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <ghirardellis.shop> was registered on August 7, 2026 through the Registrar, Spaceship, Inc. The Registrar verification confirms that a privacy protection service was initially enabled and discloses the registrant as “Bathrick Tracy” of Ontario, New York, United States.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant’s evidence, in the form of a screenshot dated August 11, 2026, shows that the disputed domain name formerly resolved to an online store headed with the GHIRARDELLI logo, offering what were presented as GHIRARDELLI branded chocolate products at discounts of “80% Off” with “Free shipping on all items”, and displaying a contact email address at a third-party domain, info@ghirardeli.us. <\/span><\/p>\n

As at October 2, 2026, the disputed domain name resolved to a “404 Not Found” page and did not resolve to any active website.<\/span><\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is aware of one prior proceeding involving the same parties, being Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Bathrick Tracy<\/em> (2026) CAC-UDRP-108954, concerning the domain name <ghirarrdellii.shop>, in which the panel ordered transfer of that domain name to the Complainant on September 27, 2026. That proceeding did not relate to the disputed domain name. The Panel is not otherwise aware of any other proceedings, pending or decided, which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/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

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant has established rights in the “GHIRARDELLI” trademark through registrations in multiple jurisdictions as already set out, the earliest of which dates from 1925 in the United States, the country in which the Respondent is said to be located. Where a complainant holds a nationally or regionally registered trademark, this prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for the purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, with the single letter “s” appended to the end of the mark.<\/span><\/p>\n

Where the relevant trademark is recognisable in the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms, whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless or otherwise, does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. <\/span><\/p>\n

A domain name which consists of a common, obvious or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for the purposes of the first element. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Panel considers, as a general proposition, that the practice of adding a letter to a recognised and well-known trademark for the purposes of registering a domain name constitutes typosquatting. See Alexa Internet and Others v duan xiangwang<\/em> (2013) CAC 100614, where the panel found that <amegazon.com> was confusingly similar to AMAZON because it incorporated the mark in its entirety and added two letters with no meaning in context, and that the deliberate misspelling did not create a distinct mark. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Panel also notes that in Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Bathrick Tracy<\/em> (2026) CAC-UDRP-108954 the panel considered that the addition of a single letter at the end of the “GHIRARDELLI” trademark did not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.<\/span><\/p>\n

The same reasoning applies here. The appended letter “s” may be read as a possessive or a plural of the Complainant’s name and sits immediately before the gTLD where it is easily overlooked. It does not materially alter the overall impression of the invented and highly distinctive “GHIRARDELLI” trademark, and Internet users are likely to perceive <ghirardellis.shop> as a mistyped or slightly modified version of the Complainant’s own domain name, or as an online shop operated by the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n

That impression is reinforced by the way in which the disputed domain name has been used. The Complainant’s evidence shows that the website at the disputed domain name displayed the GHIRARDELLI logo at its head, used images of genuine GHIRARDELLI packaged products and offered those products at heavy discounts. <\/span><\/p>\n

Internet users encountering the disputed domain name in connection with GHIRARDELLI branded goods would naturally assume that it is operated by, or otherwise associated with, the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n

The addition of the gTLD “.shop” does not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name and will be disregarded for the purposes of considering this ground. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Panel, therefore, finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.<\/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.<\/span><\/p>\n

A complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, after which the burden of production shifts to the respondent to demonstrate such rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to discharge this burden, paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1.<\/span><\/p>\n

There is no evidence that the Respondent holds any trademark rights in or is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s trademark searches disclose no registration for “ghirardellis” held by the Respondent or any third party, and the Complainant’s Google and dictionary searches show that the term has no independent meaning and refers overwhelmingly to the Complainant. <\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was also registered more than a century after the Complainant’s earliest rights in the “GHIRARDELLI” trademark were established in the United States.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for several reasons, which the Panel accepts:<\/span><\/p>\n