The Complainant is Aldi Stores Limited of Atherstone, Warwickshire, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom” or “UK”) and Aldi GmbH & Co. KG of Mulheim an der Ruhr, Germany, represented by Freeths LLP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Nigel Weaver of Tenbury Wells, Worcestershire, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names and are registered with 123-Reg Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 1, 2016. On June 1, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On June 6, 2016, 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 June 15, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 5, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 6, 2016.
The Center appointed Gabriela Paiva Hantke as the sole panelist in this matter on July 13, 2016. 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 Complainant relies upon rights in the ALDI trademark to support its Complaint.
Aldi GmbH & Co. KG owns several registrations for the ALDI trademark in the UK and European Union, including UK registration no. UK00002250300, registered on March 30, 2001 and European Union Trademark no. 001954031, registered on April 2, 2002. Aldi Stores Limited, since 1988, is a supermarket under common control with Aldi GmbH & Co. KG and licensee of the ALDI trademarks, trading under the ALDI trademark. Aldi Stores Limited’s main website is “” and they have more than 5,000 stores around the world.
The disputed domain names were registered on March 26, 2016.
The websites at the disputed domain names resolve to pay-per-click (“PPC”) parking pages with sponsored links. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark ALDI.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Consolidation of the Complainants
Aldi GmbH & Co. KG, a company registered under the laws of Germany, is the registered proprietor of the trademark registrations relied upon in the Complaint. Aldi Stores Limited, a company registered under the laws of England, is under common control with Aldi GmbH & Co. KG, and is a licensee of such trademark registrations. Therefore these companies, which are collectively referred to as the Complainant, have a common legal interest in the rights they claim are affected by the conduct of the Respondent. 6.2 Substantive Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner and licensee of the ALDI trademark. The disputed domain names and contain the trademark ALDI belonging and licensed to the Complainant. The elements “simpli” and “simply” are not enough to avoid confusion with the ALDI trademark.
In view of the above the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark owned by the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has established ownership of the ALDI trademark and is using the trademark in the supermarket area, with more than 5,000 stores.
The Complainant has not granted any license or authorization to the Respondent to use the ALDI trademark and the Respondent does not appear to be commonly known under the name “Aldi”.
In the Panel’s view, the allegations made by the Complainant in the Complaint constitute a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Moreover, the Respondent did not file any response and did not seek to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names in connection with PPC parking pages does not give rise to any rights of legitimate interests in the circumstances of the present case.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and that the Complainant has therefore satisfied the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain to the Respondent’s website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant´s trademark rights.
The websites under the disputed domain names display PPC links that direct Internet users to various third party websites including competitors of the Complainant and websites hosting surveys about the Complainant, instead of directing them to the website of the Complainant, as the users expected. The Panel finds that such use, in the circumstances of the present case, does not amount to good faith use of the disputed domain names for the purpose of the Policy.
Given the previous findings the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant satisfied the third element of the Policy. 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 disputed domain names, and , be transferred to the Complainant.
Gabriela Paiva Hantke
Sole Panelist
Date: July 27, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy