Aldi GmbH & Co. KG, and Aldi Stores Limited v Meneo Adame, not specified

WIPO Case No. D2025-2823

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Aldi GmbH & Co. KG, and Aldi Stores Limited v. Meneo Adame, not specified

Case No. D2025-2823

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Aldi GmbH & Co. KG, Germany, and Aldi Stores Limited, United Kingdom,

represented by Freeths LLP, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Meneo Adame, not specified, Spain.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <aldi-promo.com> is registered with URL Solutions, 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 17, 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 (Private Whois, GLOBAL DOMAIN PRIVACY SERVICES INC)

and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on

July 18, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the

Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant 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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the

Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 22, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5,

the due date for Response was August 11, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 14, 2025.

The Center appointed Stefan Bojovic as the sole panelist in this matter on August 18, 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 are international grocery retailers that have more than 5,000 stores across the world,

including in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands

(Kingdom of the), Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the United States of

America.

The Complainant Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (the “First Complainant”) owns, and the Complainant Aldi Stores

Limited (the “Second Complainant”) is the licensee of, various registered trademarks which comprise and/or

include the name ALDI. Among the others, the First Complainant owns the following trademark registrations:

- United Kingdom trademark registration No. UK00002250300 for ALDI, registered on March 30, 2001;

- United Kingdom trademark registration No. UK00902071728 for ALDI registered on April 14, 2005.

The disputed domain name was registered on September 7, 2024 and it resolves to an inactive webpage.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainants

The Complainants contend that they have satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a

transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to their ALDI

trademark. In particular, the similarity between the disputed domain name and their ALDI trademark is such

that Internet users will be confused into believing that the disputed domain name is registered, or at

least, operated, authorized or endorsed by the Complainants.

With reference to rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, the Complainants

contend that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the

following reasons: (i) the Complainants’ rights in the trademarks predate the Respondent’s registration of the

disputed domain name; (ii) the Complainants have not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to

use the ALDI name or trademark; (iii) so far as the Complainants’ are aware the Respondent has not used

the disputed domain name or any name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a

bona fide offering of goods or services; (iv) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain

name; and (v) the Respondent has not made any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed

domain name.

With reference to the circumstances evidencing bad faith, the Complainants indicate that Internet users will

be confused into believing that the disputed domain name has some form of association with the

Complainants. The Complainants argue that the disputed domain name has been (or is planning to be)

intentionally used to attract Internet traffic for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the

ALDI trademark, particularly with respect to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the

Respondent’s website. According to the Complainants, there is a distinct possibility that the disputed domain

page 3

name was registered in order that the Respondent might offer the same for sale to either the Complainants

or their competitors at a price higher than the cost of registration and in the hope that the parties bid against

each other to secure the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 Procedural Issues

A. Consolidation of Multiple Complainants

The Complaint was filed by two Complainants against the single Respondent. Neither the Policy nor the

Rules expressly provide for or prohibit the consolidation of multiple complainants. In this regard, WIPO

Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section

4.11.1, stipulates that: “In assessing whether a complaint filed by multiple complainants may be brought

against a single respondent, panels look at whether (i) the complainants have a specific common grievance

against the respondent, or the respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected the

complainants in a similar fashion, and (ii) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the

consolidation.”

Both Complainants are the part of the same corporate group. The First Complainant is the owner of the

registered ALDI trademarks, while the Second Complainant is the licensee of these trademarks which also

trades under the name ALDI.

Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainants have a specific common grievance

against the Respondent as they have a common legal interest in the trademark rights on which this

Complaint is based, and it is equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation of their

complaints. The Complainants are hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant”.

6.2 Substantive Issues

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules: “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 stipulates that the complainant must prove each of the following:

(i)        that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a

trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has 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.

page 4

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 Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. 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 entirety of the Complainant’s trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly,

the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the

Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms (here, “-promo”) 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 Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview

3.0, section 1.8.

In addition, it is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, can be disregarded in

the assessment of the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s

trademark. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

The Panel, therefore, finds that 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 Complainant has established a prima facie case

that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has

not rebutted the Complainant’s 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 notes that there seems to be no relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant and

that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor has the Respondent otherwise obtained an

authorization to use the Complainant’s ALDI trademark. There appears to be no element from which the

Panel could infer the Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, or that the

Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name.

The Panel also finds that the structure of the disputed domain name, which contains the Complainant’s

ALDI trademark in combination with the term “-promo” carries a risk of implied affiliation, especially having in

mind that promotions are regular activities carried out by the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section

2.5.1.

page 5

Having in mind the above, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

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.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its

ALDI trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. Namely, the first use of ALDI

trademark predates the registration of the disputed domain name by decades, making it unlikely that the

Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain

name. Also, the choice of additional term “-promo” further indicates the Respondent’s awareness of the

Complainant and its trademark, having in mind that the Complainant is in the retail business and promotions

are regular activities carried out by the Complainant. Furthermore, the Panel deems that the Complainant’s

ALDI trademark enjoys significant reputation in the retail sector, which additionally emphasizes that it is very

unlikely for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name containing this trademark without

having the Complainant in mind.

Due to the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith.

The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage, meaning that the disputed domain has not

been actively used by the Respondent. Nevertheless, the Panel holds that the particular circumstances of

this case would lead to establishment of bad faith on the Respondent's side under the doctrine of passive

holding. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith

under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. More precisely, previous panels

have already considered that passive holding of a disputed domain name can satisfy the requirements of

paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, and that in such cases the panel must give close attention to all the

circumstances of the Respondents’ behavior (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO

Case No. D2000-0003). The factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding

doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of

the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use,

(iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its

registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be

put. It should be emphasized that it is not required that all the above-listed factors be present in order to

establish bad faith use of the disputed domain name (see, for example, Compagnie Générale des

Etablissements Michelin v. K Nandalal, BlueHost, WIPO Case No. D2021-3990).

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the

Complainant’s trademark and the Respondent’s failure to submit a Response to these proceedings and

thereby to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use are some of the factors under the

doctrine of passive holding that are present in the case at hand. Additionally, in the Panel's opinion, the

distinctiveness and the reputation of the Complainant’s ALDI trademark and the structure of the disputed

domain name are such that it is rather difficult to imagine any good faith use that the disputed domain name

could be put into. Having in mind the above, the Panel finds that in the circumstances of this case, the

passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been both registered and is being used in bad

faith, and consequently that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

page 6

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 <aldi-promo.com> be transferred to the Second Complainant, Aldi

Stores Limited.

/Stefan Bojovic/

Stefan Bojovic

Sole Panelist

Date: September 1, 2025