ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Aldi GmbH & Co. KG, Aldi Stores Limited v. Shi Lei Case No. D2025-2824 1. The Parties The Complainants are Aldi GmbH & Co. KG, Aldi Stores Limited, Germany, and Aldi Stores Limited, United Kingdom (“UK”), represented by Freeths LLP, UK. The Respondent is Shi Lei, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name
is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 17, 2025. On July 17, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 18, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (UNKNOWN) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on July 18, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amendment to the Complaint on July 21, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 29, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 18, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 20, 2025.
page 2 The Center appointed Kateryna Oliinyk as the sole panelist in this matter on August 28, 2025. 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 connected companies are international leaders in grocery retailing. They have more than 5,000 stores across the world and are also active in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States of America. The Complainant Aldi Stores Limited was incorporated in 1988, its company name being Aldi Limited from 1988 to 1989, and in 1989 the company name was changed to its current name of Aldi Stores Limited. It is a known supermarket under common control with the Complainant Aldi GmbH & Co. KG, acting as a licensee under the ALDI trademarks. The Complainant Aldi GmbH & Co. KG owns, and the Complainant Aldi Stores Limited is the exclusive licensee in the UK of, various registered trademarks which comprise and/or include the sign ALDI. Among the ALDI trademarks owned by the Complainant Aldi GmbH & Co. KG, are the followings: - UK Trademark Registration No. UK00002250300 for ALDI, registered on March 30, 2001, for goods and services in International Classes 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 16, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35; - UK Trademark Registration No. UK00902714459 for ALDI, registered on September 5, 2003, for services in International Classes 35, 36; - UK Trademark Registration No. UK00902071728 for ALDI, registered on April 14, 2005, for goods and services in International Classes 3, 4, 9, 16, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34; - UK Trademark Registration No. UK00903360914 for ALDI, registered on June 2, 2010, for services in International Classes 35, 38, 39; - UK Trademark Registration No. UK00906870943 for ALDI, registered on October 19, 2009, for goods in International Classes 7, 9, 28. The Complainant Aldi Stores Limited owns the domain name containing the trademark ALDI, , registered since September 29, 1996, which is used as its main website. The disputed domain name was created on September 14, 2024 and resolves to a website which featured various sponsored links. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants The Complainants contend that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. The Complainants are the owner/the licensee of several earlier trademark registrations for the ALDI trademark, which is a brand widely known by the public. The disputed domain name fully incorporates the ALDI trademark, and the mere addition of the term “hiring” does not prevent a likelihood of confusion between the Complainants' trademark and the disputed domain name.
page 3 The Complainants contend that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainants confirm they have never assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use the ALDI trademark in any manner. The Complainants further assert that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the similarity between the ALDI trademarks and the disputed domain name, the Complainats contend that Internet users accessing the website are likely to believe that its content is endorsed or otherwise authorised by the Complainants, when this is not the case. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainants must prove each of the following: i. that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights; ii. that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and iii. that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Considering that the Respondent did not reply to the Complainants' contentions, in order to determine whether the Complainants have met their burden as stated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel bases its decision on the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy and the Rules. Under paragraph 5(f) and paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the complaint, and where a party does not comply with any provision of the Rules, the Panel “shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainants’ trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The disputed domain name incorporates the ALDI trademark together with the generic term “hiring”. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, “hiring” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
page 4 The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainants have established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainants’ prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that: - before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent did not use, nor has it made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. See paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.2. - the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. See paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.3. - the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. See paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.4. - the record contains no other factors demonstrating rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. The use of the disputed domain name for a parking page with pay-per-click (“PPC”) links does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use in the circumstances of this case. As noted in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.9, panels have found that parked pages with PPC links are not a bona fide offering when such links compete with or exploit the complainant’s mark or mislead users. However, PPC use may be permissible where the domain name is a genuine dictionary word or phrase, and the links are directly related to that meaning rather than the complainant’s (or its competitors’) trademark. In this case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name contains a coined trademark and hence do not solely consist of a dictionary word or phrase, which suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant, and moreover the PPC links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.
page 5 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants' ALDI trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website. The disputed domain name, which wholly incorporates the coined ALDI trademark, resolves to a page offering PPC links for which the Respondent most likely would receive some commercial gain. In these circumstances where the Respondent has offered no plausible or supported explanation for the registration of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the Respondent was most likely aware of the Complainants at the time of registration and is using the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the ALDI trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. The Panel finds that the Complainants have established 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 name be transferred to the Complainant Aldi Stores Limited. /Kateryna Oliinyk/ Kateryna Oliinyk Sole Panelist Date: September 14, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy