{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105495", "time_of_filling": "2023-06-01 14:48:01", "domain_names": [ "migrosinvestbnk.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "MIGROS-GENOSSENSCHAFTS-BUND " ], "complainant_representative": "SILKA AB", "respondent": [ "David Petar" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a Swiss-based umbrella organization of the regional Migros Cooperatives, founded 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 (wellness, travel, catering).<\/span><\/span>

Migros Bank is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Migros Group, founded <\/span>in 1958. The bank is present in 67 locations in Switzerland. The bank is also active on several social media platforms.<\/span>

The Complainant uses its trademarks and domain names for its activities worldwide.<\/span>

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <migrosinvestbnk.com> on 27 March 2023. <\/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 <\/span><migrosinvestbnk.com><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

\n


• The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the protected mark

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name <migrosinvestbnk.com> incorporates entirely the Complainant’s well-known trademark. The combination of the term “invest” and “bnk” for bank strengthens the confusing similarity element since the terms are closely connected to the Complainant’s trademark and business activities. The reason is that the Complainant offers online banking. <\/span><\/p>\n

In addition, t<\/span>he presence of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension “.com” in the first level portion of the disputed domain names is a standard registration requirement. According to the Complainant, it may be disregarded when assessing whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark to which the Complainant has rights.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's MIGROS trademark within the meaning of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

• Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the Complainant, the Respondent is unknown by the name “Migros”. The combination with “bnk” and “invest” strengthens the impression of a legitimate connection between the website to which the disputed domain name resolves and the Complainant. 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. When entering the terms \"Migros\" and \"Migrosbank\" in Google search engine, the first returned results point to Complainant`s official website. The Respondent could easily perform a similar search before registering the disputed domain name and would have quickly learnt that Complainant owns the trademarks and that the Complainant has been using its trademarks for a significant period of time.<\/p>\n

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name previously pointed to a website that aimed to attract consumers to a false bank website titled Migros Investment Bank, Switzerland. The Complainant managed to suspend the website, which is currently inactive. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no legitimate, non-commercial use of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right nor legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name<\/span>, within the meaning of the Paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (4)(c) of the Policy.<\/p>\n

• The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith

The Complainant argues that t<\/span>he fact that the Respondent reproduced Complainant’s website by adopting a website claiming to provide banking services with location in Zurich, Switzerland to deceive internet users into believing the Complainant operated the website does not constitute good faith of use of the disputed domain name. <\/p>\n

Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and its conduct falls within the meaning of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

<\/span><\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/span>

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>", "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": [ "Barbora Donathová" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-07-09 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

Migros Genossenschaftsbund (the Complainant) is the owner of registered trademarks for \"Migros\" and \"Migros Bank\" in particular:<\/span><\/p>\n