About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Aldi GmbH & Co. KG, Aldi Stores Limited v. Charlotte Stephenson

Case No. D2018-1621

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Aldi GmbH & Co. KG of Mulheim an der Ruhr, Germany and Aldi Stores Limited of Warwickshire, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("UK"), represented by Freeths LLP, UK.

The Respondent is Charlotte Stephenson of Rickmansworth, UK.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <aldies.info> (the "Domain Name") is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 18, 2018. On July 18, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 18, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 27, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 16, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on August 17, 2018.

The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on August 24, 2018. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainants and their associated companies operate over 5,000 grocery retail stores in countries across the world including the United States of America, Germany, Spain, the UK, and other European territories. The Complainant Aldi Stores Limited was incorporated in the UK in 1988 and ALDI is a well-known brand in the UK. The UK company operates a website at "www.aldi.co.uk" promoting its retail stores and offering grocery goods for sale. The Complainants will be referred to as the "Complainant".

The Complainant is the proprietor of a number of registered trademarks in respect of ALDI (the "Mark"), including UK trademark number 2250300 ALDI registered on March 30, 2001, and European Union trademark number 1954031 registered on April 2, 2002.

The Domain Name was registered using a privacy service on April 18, 2018. It does not resolve to any web page. The courier instructed by the Center to deliver a hard copy notice of the Complaint was unable to find the address provided by the privacy service (and the Registrar) for the Respondent, the underlying registrant of the Domain Name. The address does not appear to exist in the UK Royal Mail database.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its ALDI trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Complainant

For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has uncontested rights in the Mark, both by virtue of its trademark registrations and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its widespread use of the Mark over a number of years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".info", the Domain Name differs from the trademark only by the addition of the letters "es". In the view of the Panel, this addition does not detract from the confusing similarity between the Complainant's Mark and the Domain Name. See Section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"). Moreover, the Domain Name is phonetically identical to the plural of "Aldi" and to the possessive "Aldi's". Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has not made any use of the Domain Name and has chosen not to respond to the Complaint. In the Panel's view, the Domain Name does not have any natural meaning in English. In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent, the Panel cannot conceive of any significance of the Domain Name save as an allusion to the Complainant and its ALDI mark. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint or to take any steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In light of the nature of the Domain Name and the above finding, the Panel considers it most likely that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the ALDI mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name. Although the Respondent has not apparently made any use of the Domain Name, numerous UDRP panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. As set out in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, relevant factors include (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent's concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.

In this case, the Panel considers that the Complainant's ALDI mark is undoubtedly distinctive and has a strong reputation; there is no response from the Respondent; the address given for the Respondent does not appear to exist; and there is no apparent good faith use to which the Domain Name could be put.

In the Panel's view, the legitimate inference is that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with a view to taking unfair advantage of the Complainant's rights in the Mark, by confusing Internet users into believing that the Domain Name was being operated by or authorized by the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <aldies.info> be transferred to the Complainant.

Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: September 6, 2018

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/