The Complainant is a cooperative association founded in 1925 and based in Switzerland. It is owned by more than two million cooperative members and, with more than 99,000 employees, is one of Switzerland’s largest retailers. The Complainant operates supermarkets and department stores, and provides services relating to wellness, travel and catering. It reported group sales in excess of CHF 31 billion in 2023. The Complainant has a substantial social media presence with more than 120,000 followers on X (formerly Twitter) and over 90,000 followers on LinkedIn. The Complainant also has a mobile application for the Google Play and Apple App Store platforms. The Complainant’s Google Play application has been downloaded more than one million times.<\/p>\n
The Complainant’s main website, from which it advertises its offerings to consumers, uses the domain name <migros.ch>. The Complainant and its associated\/affiliated entities also hold a number of other domain names incorporating the MIGROS mark, such as <migros.com>, <migros.net>, <migros.fr>, <migros.at>, <migros.de> and <migros.us>. The Complainant’s MIGROS mark has been recognised as possessing a high degree of distinctiveness and worldwide fame by previous panels, for example in Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund v. Ling Li, CAC Case No. 105532.<\/p>\n
The Respondent has not filed a response in this case. It appears to be an individual based in Paris, France.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on May 27, 2024. It has previously been used to redirect Internet users to a page on one of the Complainant’s official websites, namely, “corporate.migros.ch\/en”. The Complainant notes that, following its request to the hosting provider to remove the said redirection, the disputed domain name no longer resolves to an active web page and is now passively held.<\/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": "
Complainant:<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
Notably, the Complainant submits that the identity\/confusing similarity requirement of the first element is satisfied. The Second-Level Domain of the disputed domain name comprises of the Complainant’s MIGROS trademark in full, only preceded by the word “corporate” and a hyphen. Panels in previous cases under the Policy have found that, where the relevant trademark is recognisable within the domain name concerned, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy. The MIGROS mark remains clearly distinguishable and recognisable in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not have trademark rights in, nor is it known by, “corporate-migros” or any similar term. The Respondent is neither connected to nor affiliated with the Complainant, and it has not received any license or consent to use the MIGROS mark in any way. Previous decisions under the Policy have established that the mere ownership of a domain name does not confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.<\/p>\n
The Respondent has neither used, nor prepared to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The disputed domain name has previously been used to redirect Internet users to a page on one of the Complainant’s official websites at “corporate.migros.ch\/en” which involves the subdomain “corporate” under the Complainant’s <migros.ch> domain name, and provides Internet users with details on the Complainant’s corporate offerings. The disputed domain name, by closely corresponding with the second and third levels of the URL to which it previously redirected Internet users carries a high risk of implied affiliation. Such composition, in particular through the inclusion of the commercial term “corporate”, gives Internet users the misleading impression that the disputed domain name is held and used by the Complainant to provide information about its corporate offerings. The choice of the generic Top-Level Domain “.email” also serves to increase the risk of Internet-user confusion, particularly if the Respondent were to use the disputed domain name to send phishing e-mails in connection with such (purporting to originate from the Complainant). Users would, for example, likely believe e-mail addresses ending in “@corporate-migros.email” derive from the Complainant. Such users would have this false impression reinforced by subsequently searching the disputed domain name in their browser’s address bar and being redirected to the Complainant’s official site.<\/p>\n
Where a domain name consists of a trademark plus an additional term, UDRP panels have largely held that such composition cannot constitute fair use if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner.<\/p>\n
Further, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has accrued substantial goodwill and recognition in the MIGROS mark through decades of use. The Complainant’s MIGROS trademarks long precede the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and cover many jurisdictions. Previous panels under the Policy have repeatedly noted the distinctiveness and worldwide renown of the Complainant’s MIGROS mark. The Complainant’s MIGROS mark is readily identifiable in publicly accessible trademark databases such as the WIPO Global Brand Database. Additionally, the first result further to a basic Google search of “corporate-migros” clearly pertains to the Complainant’s offerings. It is therefore evident that the simplest degree of due diligence would have made the registrant of the disputed domain name aware of the Complainant’s rights in its MIGROS mark.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name effectively impersonates the Complainant and the Respondent’s selection of same can only be explained by its awareness of, and intention to target, the Complainant.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s MIGROS mark. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name, which, given its composition, can only plausibly relate to the Complainant, to redirect users to a page on one of the Complainant’s official websites. Such conduct reinforces Internet users’ false impression (given the composition of the disputed domain name) that the disputed domain name forms part of the Complainant’s domain name portfolio and is controlled by the Complainant.<\/p>\n
Finally, the Complainant notes that, following a request to the hosting provider for the removal of the misleading redirection of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s official website, the disputed domain name no longer redirects Internet users and is passively held. The fact that the disputed domain name is no longer actively used does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under the Policy. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name can constitute bad faith use under the doctrine of passive holding.<\/p>\n
Respondent:<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/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": [ "Andrew Lothian" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-07-13 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
Among other registered trademarks, the Complainant is owner of International Registered Trademark Number 397821 for the word mark MIGROS, registered on March 14, 1973 in Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 34, and designated in respect of multiple territories.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "corporate-migros.email": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }