Aldistore-international.com

The timeline behind aldistore-international.com

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.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Aldi GmbH & Co. KG and Aldi Stores Limited v. Jomen Isla Case No. D2025-2820 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 Jomen Isla, Philippines. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <aldistore-international.com> is registered with INWX Gmb H & Co . KG (the “Reg istrar”). 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 f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 22, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which dif f ered f rom the named Respondent (Unkno wn) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on July 22, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants f iled an amendment to the Complaint on July 23, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 23, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was August 12, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on August 13, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Áron László as the sole panelist in this matter on August 20, 2025. The Panel f inds 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 First Complainant , Aldi GmbH & Co. KG, owns the ALDI trademark portfolio. The Second Complainant, Aldi Stores Limited, is the exclusive licensee of various ALDI trademarks in the United Kingdom. Aldi is one of the world's leading grocery retailers and operates more than 5,000 stores worldwide. It has a strong presence in Europe and the United States of America. The First Complainant is the owner of numerous ALD I trademarks in the United Kingdom, including the f ollowing trademarks: - United Kingdom trademark ALDI Reg. No. UK00002250300 registered on March 30, 2001; - United Kingdom trademark ALDI Reg. No. UK00902071728 registered on April 14, 2005; - United Kingdom trademark ALDI SHOP & GO Reg. No. UK00003634437 registered on October 8, 2021. The Second Complainant is the licensee of the above trademarks and trades under the name “Aldi” in the United Kingdom. The Second Complainant’s main website is available at the domain name <www.aldi.co.uk>. The Panel will hereinaf ter refer to the First Complainant and the Second Complainant as the “Complainant”. The Respondent is a private individual, based on the information provided by the Registrar, residing in the Philippines. The disputed domain name was registered on September 6, 2024. There is no content available at the disputed domain name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to its registered trademarks, as it includes the word “aldi” (identical to the Complainant’s name and trademarks) together with “sto re-international”, which suggests that the disputed domain name will host a webpage relating to goods or services specifically sold by the Complainant, thereby enhancing conf usion. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name f or the f ollowing reasons: (i) the Complainant’s rights in the trademarks predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name; (ii) the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use the ALDI name or trademark; (iii) As far as the Complainant is aware, the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name or any name corresponding to it in connection with a bona f ide 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 f air use of the disputed domain name. page 3 Finally, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad f aith. It further asserts that Internet users will mistakenly believe that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant in some way, whether through affiliation or endorsement. The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name has been intentionally used to attract internet traf f ic f or commercial gain, creating a likelihood of confusion with the ALDI trademark with respect to the source, sponsorship, af f iliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. The Complainant also claims that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention of reselling it at a price exceeding the registration cost, in order to encourage parties to bid against each other to acquire it. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to decide a complaint based on the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that a complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled o r transf erred : i. the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or conf usingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; ii. the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. In view of the Respondent’s f ailure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding based on the Complainant’s undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f ), 14(a), and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences as it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel may accept all reasonable allegations set f orth in a complaint. However, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint wholly contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions 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 mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, “store” and “international” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such terms does not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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 of ten 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 f orward 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 f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie 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 f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. It should also be noted that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name and has not demonstrated any plans to do so. Theref ore, use of the domain name for a bona fide of f ering or legitimate non-commercial use, as set out in the Rules, cannot apply under the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the Respondent’s name is not in any way similar to the disputed domain name. In the absence of any submissions to the contrary from the Respondent, it appears that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or 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 f aith. 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 f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. The Panel notes that the Respondent’s decision to incorporate the Complainant’s renowned trademark into the disputed domain name is likely to mislead Internet users into believing that the disputed domain name is af f iliated with or endorsed by the Complainant. The Panel believes that the addition of the words “store” and “international” increases the likelihood that the disputed domain name has been intentionally used to attract Internet traf fic for commercial gain, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion with the ALDI trademark. This is because the Complainant is well known f or running retail stores around the world. Panels have f ound that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a f inding of bad f aith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding of bad f aith under the Policy. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <aldistore-international.com> be transf erred to the Second Complainant Aldi Stores Limited. /Áron László/ Áron László Sole Panelist Date: September 2, 2025

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