{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106762", "time_of_filling": "2024-07-31 09:31:32", "domain_names": [ "migrosfrancemigros-ltd.com", "migros-ltd.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund \/ Federation Of Migros Cooperative " ], "complainant_representative": "SILKA AB", "respondent": [ " Antreas Papadopoulos" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant was founded in 1925 and is one of Switzerland's largest retailers and private employers, operating through five business units: cooperative retailing, commerce, industry and wholesaling, travel, and services.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span>The Complainant owns more than 200 MIGROS trademarks registered worldwide, both as word and figurative marks, across several classes and not limited to retail, food, and delivery services. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant is also the registrant of the domain names <migros.ch>, registered in 1996, and <migros.com>, registered on February 9, 1998.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span>The disputed domain names were registered on June 14, 2024. At the time of this decision, the disputed domain names resolve to inactive websites.<\/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": "

A. Complainant<\/strong><\/h4>\n

The Complainant asserts that each of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and the corresponding provisions in the Rules have been satisfied.  In particular, the Complainant asserts that:<\/p>\n

(1) The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MIGROS trademark. The Complainant holds rights to the MIGROS trademark. Each of the disputed domain names incorporates the MIGROS trademark in its entirety, along with the country name “FRANCE” and the abbreviation “LTD”, as well as the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.COM.” This combination clearly indicates the Respondent’s intention to mislead Internet users into believing that the disputed domain names are associated with the Complainant. By adding the terms “France” and “Ltd”, the Respondent is attempting to impersonate the Complainant, making the disputed domain names appear as though they represent (a) the Complainant’s business in France or (b) a corporate branch or official website of the Complainant. The addition of the gTLD “.com” does not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain names, nor does it eliminate the confusing similarity with the Complainant’s MIGROS trademark, as the gTLD is viewed as a standard registration requirement.<\/p>\n

(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Complainant has never assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred, or otherwise authorized the Respondent to register or use the MIGROS trademark in any manner. The Respondent has never been commonly known by any of the disputed domain names and has not acquired any trademark rights in them. By registering disputed domain names, the Respondent’s intention is to prevent the Complainant from exercising its legitimate rights over the MIGROS trademark, in which the Complainant has prior rights.<\/p>\n

(3) The disputed domain names should be considered as having been registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. The MIGROS trademark is clearly famous and widely known. The Complainant's active presence in the market and on social media makes it unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the MIGROS trademarks. The fact that the disputed domain names resolve to inactive websites indicates that the Respondent has not made legitimate use of the disputed domain names since their registration, suggesting that the Respondent had no demonstrable or legitimate plan to use the disputed domain names or engage in any activity related to them. The disputed domain names were registered with the intent of taking advantage of the reputation of the Complainant’s MIGROS trademark.<\/p>\n

The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n

B. Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are 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": [ "Ganna Prokhorova" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-08-22 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant owns more than 200 MIGROS trademarks registered worldwide, both as word and figurative marks, across several classes and not limited to retail, food, and delivery services. Notable registrations include, particularly, the following:<\/span><\/p>\n