Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-106234

The Complainant has successfully proved to be the owner of the trademarks MIGROS and MIGROSBANK. 

The disputed domain name is composed by the element "migrosb". 

The Panel finds that the trademark “MIGROS” is fully recognizable in the disputed domain name and that the addition of the letter "b" at the end of MIGROS has no significant impact in the confusing similarity assessment.

According to a consolidated case law, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in it, the confusing similarity threshold is met.

Furthermore, the addition of “.online” is generally disregarded 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. 

Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

In this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s submitted evidence and allegations are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name also in the view of the fact that the Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.

On the basis of the information submitted by the Complainant and not contested by the Respondent, the Panel agrees that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor the Complainant has authorized the Respondent to use and register the disputed domain name. 

The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods / services nor a legitimate / fair use of a domain name. In particular the Complainant proved that the disputed domain name linked to a website which could be associated to its own website and business.

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 was registered and is used in bad faith. 

The Panel finds the following circumstances as material in order to establish the Respondent's bad faith in the registration of the disputed domain name:

(i) the disputed domain name was registered well after the Complainant acquired rights on the trademarks MIGROS and MIGROSBANK;

(ii) the disputed domain name is a clear and obvious misspelling of the Complainant's trademark (i.e. typo squatting). Previous panels found that typo squatting discloses an intention on the part of the respondent to confuse users seeking or expecting to find a website related to the Complainant;

(iii) given the goodwill of MIGROS and the fact that it is a fanciful word it is improbable that the disputed domain name was registered without having knowledge on the Complainant's prior rights on the trademarks MIGROS and MIGROS BANK.

Furthermore, the Panel agrees that the disputed domain name was used in bad faith. In particular, the disputed domain name <migrosb.online> resolved to a website which could be associated with the Complainant's website. Thus, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his websites (par. 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).

Moreover, this domain name could be used by the Respondent to collect personal information about the Complainant's potential clients. This could be very dangerous as the Complainant is also active in the banking / financial fields.

Moreover, the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark which makes it very improbable that the disputed domain name could be used in good faith.

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.