Ghirardelii.shop

The timeline behind ghirardelii.shop

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

Case number CAC-UDRP-108917 Time of filing 2026-08-10 09:33:17 Domain names ghirardelii.shop Case administrator Organization Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin) Complainant Organization Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG Complainant representative Organization SILKA AB Respondent Name Karen Espino Other Legal Proceedings The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name. Identification Of Rights the Complainant owns the following trademarks: Trademark Jurisdiction Registration Number Registration Date Class(es) Covered GHIRARDELLI United States 205776 17 Nov 1925 30 GHIRARDELLI United States 1645206 21 May 1991 16, 18, 21, 25, 30, 42 GHIRARDELLI United States 3508893 30 Sep 2008 6, 16, 18, 21, 25, 28 GHIRARDELLI European Union 003716453 27 Jul 2005 30, 35, 42, 43 GHIRARDELLI International 826074 30 Mar 2004 30, 35, 43 GHIRARDELLI International 936941 27 Jul 2007 6, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 28, 41 GHIRARDELLI Canada TMA378615 18 Jan 1991 30 GHIRARDELLI Canada TMA763505 8 Apr 2010 16, 18, 21, 25, 30, 35, 43 Factual Background I - The Complainant The Complainant is a well-known chocolate maker based in Switzerland. Over the years, the Complainant expanded its brand portfolio abroad and acquired chocolate businesses including Ghirardelli (1998). Ghirardelli is one of the oldest US chocolate companies, active also with the website www.ghirardelli.com registered in 1998. II - The disputed domain name and the Respondent The disputed domain name <ghirardelii.shop> was registered on July 23rd, 2026 by Karen Espino. The disputed domain Name resolved to a website that impersonated the Complainant by presenting itself as an official GHIRARDELLI online store. Parties Contentions The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it. No administratively compliant Response has been filed. Rights The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy). No Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy). Bad Faith The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy). Procedural Factors The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision. Principal Reasons for the Decision 1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant agrees that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the GHIRARDELLI trademarks. As a matter of fact, <ghiradelii.shop> is a misspelling of the GHIRARDELLI trademarks which are clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. According to a consolidated case law if the trademark is entirely comprised in the disputed domain name or if it is recognizable within the domain name, the threshold requested by the First element of the Policy is met. Furthermore, the addition of the ".shop" gTLD is generally disregarded for assessing confusing similarity in view of its technical function. As a consequence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, for the purposes of the First Element of the Policy. 2. The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint. Therefore, it has filed no information on possible rights or legitimate interests it might hold on <ghiradelii.shop>. On its part, the Complainant has submitted information and arguments which, according to the Panel, are sufficient to conclude that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. According to the information provided by the Complainant, and not contested, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor it has been authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel agrees that the use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods and services nor to a legitimate non-commercial use for the purpose of the Policy. The Complainant proved that the disputed domain name redirected to a website that could be perceived as part of the Complainant's official network since it contains the Complainant's trademarks and images of the Complainant's products. For these reasons, the Panel takes the view that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy. 3. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent was clearly aware that the Complainant conducted its business under the GHIRARDELLI trademark as: i) the disputed domain name was registered well after the Complainant's trademark registrations; ii) the disputed domain name redirected to a website which offered for sale GHIRARDELLI products and contained images of GHIRARDELLI branded products; iii) the disputed domain name is a misspelling of the trademark GHIRARDELLI. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. As regards the use in bad faith, the Panel agrees that <ghirardelii.shop> is used in a way that could create a risk of confusion with the Complainant's business. As a matter of fact, the disputed domain name operates a website that promotes the sale of products using the Complainant’s trademark. In addition, part of the pictures of the products are copied from the Complainant’s website. The Panel agrees that the website to which the disputed domain name redirects could mislead internet users into thinking that it is, in some way or another, connected to, sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant and its business. All above considered the Panel finds the evidence submitted as sufficient to prove use and registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy. For all the reasons stated above, the Complaint is Accepted and the disputed domain name(s) is (are) to be ghirardelii.shop: Transferred PANELLISTS Name Andrea Mascetti Date of Panel Decision 2026-09-13 Publish the Decision

Source of record: CAC . Reproduced for research; CAC is the authoritative source.