{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101810",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-12-13 08:43:15",
    "domain_names": [
        "migros-ch.site"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "MIGROS-GENOSSENSCHAFTS-BUND "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "SILKA Law AB",
    "respondent": [
        "Mary  Hines"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nPART I \r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.\r\n\r\nMigros Genossenschafts-bund (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant), is the Swiss based umbrella organization of the regional Migros Cooperatives which is known throughout Switzerland. Migros Genossenschafts-bund was founded by Gottlieb Duttweiler in 1925 in Zurich and has now evolved into a Community of ten regional Cooperatives. Nowadays, the Migros Group, however, is not only related to the food industry. In 2015, the Migros Group opened more than 250 stores and maintained its mission of ‘contributing to employment’ with its 4,500 new employees. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns several trademarks consisting of or containing the words “MIGROS” and “MIGROS BANK” (hereinafter referred to as \"trademarks”). The use of the Disputed Domain Name makes it clear that the Respondent is aware of Migros.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns various registrations for domain names that include its registered trademarks, including <www.migros.com>, <www.migros.ch>, among others. Complainant uses these domain names to connect to websites through which it informs potential customers about its products and services. The Complainant has previously successfully challenged several MIGROS domain names through the UDRP process on the following WIPO cases: D2016-2547, D2016-0687, D2015-2375, D2015-1630, D2015-1197, D2015-1012, D2015-0921, D2015-0974, D2015-0564, D2015-0326D2000-1171, D2008-0092, DCH2008-0016, DCH2010-0020, DCH2010-0021, D2015-0564, D2015-0326\r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Name was registered on November 28, 2017 which incorporates the Complainant’s well-known trademark in its entirety. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) does not add any distinctiveness to the Disputed Domain Name. The combination with the word “ch” which serves as country identifier and a hyphen. These elements do not prevent the confusing similarity of the Disputed Domain Name with the Complainant’s trademarks. Where the Disputed Domain Name is compared with the Complainant’s registered \"MIGROS\" trademark, “MIGROS” is still the most distinctive word. The new gTLD .site shall also be ignored. Compare with CAC Case No.101711 where it was stated that the addition of a gTLD” does not distinguish the domain name. The following should apply in the current case and the Disputed Domain Name should be considered as identical to the registered trademark \"MIGROS\". \r\n\r\nPART II \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\nFirst of all, there is no bona fide offering of goods or services where the Disputed Domain Name incorporates a trademark which is not owned by the Respondent, nor is the Respondent known by the name “MIGROS”. The addition of the country code “ch” in the Disputed Domain Name strengthens the impression of a legitimate connection between the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves and the Complainant. The Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has conducted searches on the Respondent´s name and haven’t found anything that would justify the Disputed Domain Name registration either by company name or trademark registrations. The Respondent has not provided the Complainant with any evidence of its use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The tendency of domain names is to induce consumers into visiting the related website under the misapprehension that the websites are endorsed by the Complainant. Relying on consumer confusion concerning a well-established trademark is not a route to establishing a claim for rights or legitimate interests.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has made no effort to use the Disputed Domain Name for any purpose that might explain its choice in a manner consistent with having rights or legitimate interest in the name “MIGROS”. When accessing the site, the Complainant is supposedly giving away gift cards to celebrate its anniversary (text via Mobile \/ Whatsapp). The site is accessible via a mobile device but has been closed down when accessing from e.g. a laptop. When entering the terms in Google search engine, the first returned results point to the Complainant‘s official website. The Respondent could easily perform a similar search before registering the Disputed Domain Name and would have quickly learnt that the trademarks are owned by the Complainant and that the Complainant has been using its trademarks for a significant period of time. \r\n\r\nThere is no evidence that the Respondent has a history of using, or preparing to use, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. It is clear that the Complainant has become a distinctive identifier associated with the term “MIGROS” and that the intention of the Disputed Domain Name is to take advantage of an association with the business of the Complainant.\t\r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Name is pointing to a site that bears the resemblance of a “MIGROS” endorsed site. It adopts the same colour scheme (orange, yellow, white).  The Disputed Domain Name was used to set up a website in order to deceive members of the public into believing that they can safely enter into a questionnaire and then receive a gift card. The website is deceptively similar in layout, colour and content. The Complainant took all measures to try and have the site removed and the following day the website was suspended, however the access from a mobile device is still possible. Due to the historical use of the site there is always a risk that the site will be activated again. Clearly, the Respondent is not known by the Disputed Domain Name, nor does the Respondent claim to have made legitimate, non-commercial use of the Disputed Domain Name. \r\n\r\nPART III \r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe fact that the Respondent reproduced the Complainant’s website by adopting the Complainant’s logo and overall look was with the intention to deceive internet users into believing the website was in fact operated by the Complainant. Compare with WIPO decision D2017-0066 where the same circumstances were at hand. The Respondent created a website nearly identical with the Complainant whose core business was banking. The Panel stated that: “The Respondent did not make a fair or non-commercial use of the Disputed Domain Name. On the opposite, the Respondent used a privacy shield service to register the Disputed Domain Name and then used it to resolve to an obviously infringing website copying the official Complainant’s website and reproducing the Complainant’s trademarks.” Same circumstances are at hand in the present case. By holding its registration of the Disputed Domain Name, under the circumstances explained herein the conclusion of acting in bad faith (including a sham offering of vouchers) can under no circumstances be use in good faith. Compare with WIPO Case No. D2016-2474 involving fake gift cards where the Panel stated that: “The Panel, therefore, has no difficulty in finding that by using the disputed domain name, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his own website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s H&M trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website or of a product or services thereon.” Such circumstances, however, shall be evidence of registration and making use of the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. \r\n\r\nAdditionally, the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name using a privacy service. While this is not, of itself, indicative of bad faith, the use of a privacy service to shield the Respondent's identity can further support an inference of bad faith where there is evidence of other improper behaviour on the part of the Respondent [e.g. Bryant Tyson v. Fundacion Private Whois\/ Domain IP Holding Corp., WIPO Case No. D2013-0529].\r\n\r\nTo summarize, the confusingly similar nature of the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant's trademarks, together with the word “site\" demonstrates lack of good faith. Consequently, the Respondent should be considered to have registered and to be using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n",
    "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. ",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Mrs Selma Ünlü"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-02-05 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant, Migros Genossenschafts-bund (hereinafter referred to as \"Migros\"), is one of the biggest retail company of Switzerland.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the following trademarks in several classes and domain names bearing the “MIGROS“ phrase.\r\n\r\nCurrently, Migros is the owner of various trademark registrations such as: \r\n\r\nThe Swiss  trademark n° P-405500 dated 13.02.1993 designating goods and services in classes 1-9, 11, 12, 14-32 and 34.\r\n\r\nThe Swiss trademark  n° 2P-415060 dated 27.09.1994 designating the services in classes 35-42.\r\n\r\nThe EU trademark n° 003466265 dated 29.10.2003 designating the services in class 35.\r\n\r\nThe American trademark n° 85299137 dated 19.04.2011 designating \"retail store services featuring foods, beverages, personal care products and household cleaning preparations\".\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has been extensively using the “MIGROS” denomination on all internet environments including and not limited to the company’s official websites – among which are www.migros.com, www.migros.ch; www.migrosbank.com.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "MIGROS-CH.SITE": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}