{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103887", "time_of_filling": "2021-06-24 09:44:24", "domain_names": [ "migrosprivateonline.com ", "MIGROSCREDIT.COM" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "MIGROS-GENOSSENSCHAFTS-BUND " ], "complainant_representative": "SILKA AB", "respondent": [ "Richard Nora" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "Founded in Zurich in 1925, the Complainant is known throughout Switzerland as one of the biggest department stores, offering a wide range of food, non-food products and services. It also operates other businesses including travel agencies, cultural institutions, and restaurants. These businesses are promoted at the website https:\/\/migros.ch. Finally, starting in 1958, the Complainant has operated pension funds and a bank through which it offers banking and credit options to its private customers. These banking and credit services are provided online at the website https:\/\/www.migrosbank.ch. The trademarks MIGROS and MIGROSBANK are promoted through the above-mentioned websites as well as through social media accounts on such platforms as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Xing, and others. In 2016 the Complainant employed 21,762 personnel and operated banks in 67 locations in Switzerland.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names and were both registered on June 3, 2021. The disputed domain names aim to attract consumers to a fake website displaying the MIGROS trademark in connection with banking services in order to deceive members of the public into believing that they can safely pay money to a third party.", "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 names.", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that each of the disputed domain names 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 names (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 names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).", "procedural_factors": "Consolidation of Respondents\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has requested that its dispute against the two named Respondents be consolidated into a single proceeding based on evidence that both of the disputed domain names are, in fact, under common ownership or control. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” Despite being presented with WHOIS records that name different Registrants, prior Panels have held that consolidation of a case against multiple domain names is appropriate where there are other similarities that indicate a likelihood of common ownership. See, e.g., American Airlines, Inc. v. Ramadhir Singh, WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. \/ Reema Gupta, Ballu Balwant, Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) \/ Lucy Lionel, Lucy99, Red Keep, D2021-0294 (WIPO March 11, 2021) (consolidation upheld based on “the similar content and layout of the websites that were linked to the disputed domain names; the fact that all the disputed domain names target a specific sector and the same trademark within this sector; the similar patterns in the disputed domain names; and the identical reaction of the Respondents to the Complaint, not replying to the Complainant’s contentions.”); Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Shuai Li \/ Nan Zhang, FA 1932371 (FORUM March 18, 2021) (similar website content, use of same registrars and privacy services).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that, despite their respective WHOIS records listing the different Registrant names of Richard Nora and marteen van gogh, the disputed domain names are controlled by the same entity because, among other facts, both were registered on the same date with the same registrar and use the same privacy service. Further, both owners list postal addresses in the United States and use email addresses on the gmail.com service. Finally, both of the disputed domain names resolve to websites that impersonate the Complainant and claim to provide banking services. \r\n\r\nIn light of the above, and in the absence of participation in these proceedings by any party claiming to be a Registrant of these disputed domain names, the Panel determines that it is more likely than not that both of the disputed domain names are under common control by the same domain name holder. As such, it will not be inequitable for the present case to proceed in a consolidated manner against both of the disputed domain names. For the remainder of this decision their holder will be referred to in the singular as the “Respondent”.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is satisfied that all other procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Steven M. Levy, Esq." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-07-23 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns the following Swiss National Trademark Registrations:\r\n\r\n- MIGROS, Reg. No. P-405500, dated 20.09.1993;\r\n- MIGROS, Reg. No. 2P-415060, dated 13.02.1995;\r\n- MIGROSBANK Logo, Reg. No. 623618, dated 12.12.2011; and\r\n- MIGROSBANK, Reg. No. 414500, dated 01.12.1995.", "decision_domains": { "MIGROSPRIVATEONLINE.COM ": "TRANSFERRED", "MIGROSCREDIT.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }