Groupe Lactalis v ss ss, ggggggccgggcccc

WIPO Case No. D2025-0193

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Groupe Lactalis v. ss ss, ggggggccgggcccc

Case No. D2025-0193

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Groupe Lactalis, France, represented by Nameshield, France.

The Respondent is ss ss, ggggggccgggcccc, Thailand.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <lactaliscow.com> is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 17, 2025. On January 17, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 20, 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 (Redacted for privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 20, 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 amended Complaint on January 21, 2025.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 February 3, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was February 23, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 24, 2025.

The Center appointed Rebecca Slater as the sole panelist in this matter on March 3, 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.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is Groupe Lactalis, a French multi-national company founded in 1933. The Complainant is engaged in the food industry, particularly the dairy sector. It has traded under the name “Lactalis” since 1999. The Complainant claims its dairy products group is the largest in the world, with over 85,000 employees, 266 production sites and a presence in over 51 countries.

The Complainant has a portfolio of registrations for the LACTALIS word mark, including European Union
Trade Mark Registration No. 1529833 (registered November 7, 2002), International Trademark Registration
No. 900154 (registered July 27, 2006) and International Trademark Registration No. 1135514 (registered

September 20, 2012), (the “Trade Mark”).

The Complainant also holds a large portfolio of domain names containing the Trade Mark, including
<lactalis.com> (registered January 9, 1999).

The Respondent is (presumably) an individual reportedly located in Thailand. The Respondent did not submit a response, and consequently little information is known about the Respondent.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 9, 2025.

The website at the disputed domain name currently resolves to an error page (displaying “400 Bad Request”) which is not being used.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that:

- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. It consists of the entirety of the Trade Mark followed by the word “cow”, which references the Complainant’s dairy-related activities.

- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The

Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, is not affiliated with the Complainant and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the Trade Mark. The disputed domain name resolves to an error page. The Respondent has not made use of, and does not have any demonstrable plan to use, the disputed domain name.

- The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent. Given has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name. It is not possible to conceive of any plausible legitimate use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent (either actual or contemplated). the distinctiveness of the Trade Mark and the Complainant’s reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the
Policy have been satisfied, namely:

1. the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

2.        the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

3.        the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.

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 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 entirety of the Trade Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms (here, “cow”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of this term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

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 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.

page 4

The Panel notes that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation. name.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the Trade

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.

The Panel finds it highly unlikely that the disputed domain name was registered without knowledge of the the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s goal in registering and using the disputed domain name, on the balance of probabilities, appears to be to attract Internet users for taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s well-known Trade Mark. This amounts to “opportunistic bad faith” in violation of the Policy.

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. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Trade Mark, the composition of the disputed domain name, and the Respondent’s failure to file a response. The Panel finds that, in these circumstances, the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has 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 <lactaliscow.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Rebecca Slater/
Rebecca Slater
Sole Panelist
Date: March 6, 2025