URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf
Claim Number: FA2112001978472


DOMAIN NAME

<lidl-de.online>


PARTIES


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

   Respondent: Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Redacted for Privacy Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf of Reykjavik, Capital Region, II, IS
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: DotOnline Inc.
   Registrars: Namecheap

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.
   Ho-Hyun Nahm, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: December 28, 2021
   Commencement: December 28, 2021
   Default Date: January 12, 2022
   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



   Findings of Fact: 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 Lidl stores can be found in 29 countries. In Germany LIDL operates around 3,200 stores. It owns numerous national and international trademarks “LIDL.”

  

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 


Examiner finds that Complainant holds a valid national or regional trademark registration and that is in current use. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name <lidl-de.online> is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark “LIDL.”


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Examiner notes that i) the disputed domain name is not used for bona fide offering goods or services as it does not resolve into an active website; ii) Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its trademark “LIDL” or register the domain name and is not affiliated with Respondent; and iii) Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, Examiner determines that Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed 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; 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 


Examiner infers that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its mark LIDL due to the notoriety of Complainant’s mark. Examiner notes that Respondent has not made active use of the domain name since its registration. Taking into account the notoriety of Complainant’s mark, Examiner determines that Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use.


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. lidl-de.online

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm
Examiner
Dated: January 12, 2022

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page