{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105025", "time_of_filling": "2022-11-30 15:56:00", "domain_names": [ "zurichmigros.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "MIGROS-GENOSSENSCHAFTS-BUND " ], "complainant_representative": "SILKA AB", "respondent": [ "Nwaka Emmanuel" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant in this proceeding is MIGROS-GENOSSENSCHAFTS-BUND, a Swiss retail company founded in 1925 by Mr. Gottlieb Duttweiler. Today, the Complainant is owned by its more than 2 million cooperative members, organized into ten regional cooperatives.<\/span><\/p>\n

One of the most relevant ventures of the Complainant is Migros Bank AG, which is a wholly owned subsidiary and consists of the parent company's financial services division. With a total of 67 branches and headquartered in Zurich, Migros Bank AG is one of the largest and most established banks in Switzerland, providing a full range of commercial banking services to both individuals and business customers. For instance, the Bank offers deposits, online banking, loans, mortgages, cards and payments, savings, investments, and insurance.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on 22 November 2022 and is held by the Respondent.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The domain name website (i.e. website available under internet address containing the disputed domain name) resolves to a website which prominently offers financial services, including a section where Internet users can enter their personal information. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

The Parties' contentions are the following:<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

COMPLAINANT:<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

CONFUSING SIMILARITY<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that:<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

- The disputed domain name contains the “MIGROS” word element of the Complainant's trademarks in its entirety and thus they are almost identical (i.e. confusingly similar) to the Complainant’s trademarks since the domain names differ from the Complainant trademarks only by a descriptive expression \"ZURICH\".<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Zurich is a city in Switzerland in which the Complainant has its headquarters and as such it raises association and further confusion with the Complainant and its business. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Thus, according to the Complainant the confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name is clearly established.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that:<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant has not authorized, permitted or licensed the Respondent to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. On this record, Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, the domain name website has not been used for any legitimate or fair purposes.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that:<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Seniority of the Complainant's trademarks predates the disputed domain name's registration and such trademarks are well known in relevant business circles. The Respondent can be considered aware of the Complainant's trademarks when registering the disputed domain name due to well-known character thereof, which should have been checked by the Respondent by performing a simple internet search.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Present circumstances indicate that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to the Complainant. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The use of the disputed domain name for banking and financial services indicate that the disputed domain name might be intended for ''phishing'' purposes. Such practice consists of attracting customers to a web page which imitates the real page of the Complainant (i.e. bank website) with an intention to mislead such users and have them disclosed confidential information.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

It is well-founded that registration of the disputed domain names that are confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademarks which enjoys strong reputation, plus other facts, such as above-described unfair use of the disputed domain names, are sufficient to establish bad faith under the 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions contending that registering a “phishing” website is perhaps the clearest evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith, especially when it concerns trademarks of financial institutions that enjoy high level of notoriety and well-known character.<\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent has not provided any response to the Complaint.<\/span><\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Jiří Čermák" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-01-06 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is, inter alia, a registered owner of the following trademarks containing a word element \"MIGROS\"\":<\/span><\/p>\n

(i) MIGROS (word), EU Trademark, filing (priority) date 26 July 2000, application no. 000744912, registered for goods and services in the int. classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 - 32, 34, and 35-42;<\/span><\/p>\n

(ii) MIGROS (word), EU trademark, filing (priority) date 13 May 2005, application no. 003466265, registered for services in the int. class 35.<\/span><\/p>\n

besides other national and international trademarks consisting of or containing the \"MIGROS\" wording.<\/span><\/p>\n

(Collectively referred to as \"Complainant's trademarks\").<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant has also registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term „MIGROS\" such as <migrosbank.ch> (registered on March 20, 1996) (official website), and others.<\/span><\/p>", "decision_domains": { "zurichmigros.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }