Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v.
Claim Number: FA2011001921225
Complainant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG of Neckarsulm, Germany.
Complainant Representative: HK2 Rechtsanwälte of Berlin, Germany.
Respondent: Cest Lebon of Mazzall, IL.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotSite Inc.
Registrars: Ligne Web Services SARL dba LWS
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Jonathan Agmon, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: November 19, 2020
Commencement: November 20, 2020
Default Date: December 7, 2020
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Complainant belongs to the LIDL-Group, a global discount supermarket chain based in Germany. The LIDL-Group operates more than 10.000 stores with over 285.000 employees. Currently its stores can be found in 29 countries, inter alia, 3.300 of those in Germany and around 1.500 in France.
Complainant owns numerous national and international trademarks for the word mark “LIDL”, including but not limited to:
- European Union Trademark (Registration No. 006460562) registered on October 15, 2008; and
- International Registration No. 748064 registered on July 26, 2000.
Complainant asserts the following against the Respondent:
1. The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark [URS 1.2.6.1]: for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use;
2. Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name [URS 1.2.6.2];
3. The domain name was registered and are being used in bad faith [URS 1.2.6.3] such as: Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
[URS
1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar
to a word mark:
(i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration
and that is in current use; or
(ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
(iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the
time the URS complaint is filed.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations of the mark “LIDL”.
The domain name includes Complainant's mark in its entirety with the addition of a descriptive term “-groupe” which is “group” in the French language, together with the gTLD ".site".
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its LIDL mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the registered domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith. a. Registrant has registered or 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 documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; c. Registrant has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant's web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant's web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
Complainant provided evidence showing a webpage of the disputed domain name which does not appear to be in active use. The evidence provided clearly shows that the Respondent has knowledge of Complainant and its LIDL mark as the trademark registrations predate the registration of the domain name by 20 years. By using Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name and hiding the identity of the website provider, Respondent is purposefully misleading users as to the source, sponsorship, or endorsement of the offerings under the Disputed Domain. The evidence provided clearly shows that the Respondent was targeting the Complainant. Given the clear and convincing evidence filed by the Complainant, the conclusion is that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to disrupt the business of the Complainant and creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.3 (c) and (d).
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Jonathan Agmon, Examiner
Dated: December 8, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page