URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v.
Claim Number: FA2011001919817


DOMAIN NAME

<lidlfr.site>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG Markus-Alexander Weinert of Neckarsulm, Germany
  
Complainant Representative: HK2 Rechtsanwälte Sina Schmiedefeld of Berlin, Germany

   Respondent: Van Pham of Hai Hau, Nam \u0110\u1ecbnh, II, VN
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: DotSite Inc.
   Registrars: Go Daddy, LLC

EXAMINER


   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.
   Piotr Nowaczyk, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: November 6, 2020
   Commencement: November 10, 2020
   Default Date: December 1, 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").

RELIEF SOUGHT


   Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

STANDARD OF REVIEW


   Clear and convincing evidence.

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION


   Procedural Findings:  
      Multiple Complainants: No multiple complainants or respondents and no extraneous domain names require dismissal.

   Findings of Fact: The Complainant belongs to the LIDL-Group, a famous 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. The Complainant owns the international trademark registration for the LIDL mark n° 748064 (registered on July 26, 2000) and the EU trademark registration for the LIDL mark n° 006460562 (registered on July 27, 2002). The Domain Name resolves to a website featuring pay-per-click links to, inter alia, websites of Complainant’s business competitors, namely “Rewe” and “Aldi”, German supermarket chains. The Complainant contends that <lidlfr.site> is confusingly similar to the LIDL mark, and was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent who has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

  

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 


The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's LIDL mark since it incorporates the word mark in its entirety. The addition of letters “fr” (which stand for “France”) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. It is well accepted that the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, thus the “.site” is of no consequence here (Facebook Inc. v. Radoslav, Claim Number: FA1308001515825). The Examiner finds that the Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.1. of URS Procedure.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


According to the Complainant, it has not authorized the Respondent to use its LIDL mark or register the Domain Name. There are also no basis to conclude that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. Moreover, the Respondent profits from this use through the receipt of pay-per-click fees, which does not qualify as a bona fide offering goods or services. In the absence of any counter arguments and evidences in support of the Respondent’s rights and legitimate interest, the Examiner finds that the second element under URS Procedure 1.2.6.2 has been satisfied.


[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; or
  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; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant'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 Registrant's web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Registering a domain name which is confusingly similar to a registered trademark, and using it to attract Internet users to visit a website featuring pay-per-click links is viewed by the Examiner as bad faith. The Respondent has not submitted any evidences confirming circumstances listed in URS Procedure 5.7. In the absence of any defense which might have affected the decision on this issue, it is found that the third element of the policy under URS Procedure 1.2.6.3 has been satisfied.


FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD


The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

DETERMINATION


After reviewing the parties 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 name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

  1. lidlfr.site

 

Piotr Nowaczyk
Examiner
Dated: December 4, 2020

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page