The Complainant, Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund (Migros), was founded in 1925 in Zurich as a private enterprise by Gottlieb Duttweiler. From the opening of the first self-service grocery store in 1948 to this day, the Complainant keeps the cooperative society as its form of organisation and serves as the umbrella organization of ten regional Migros Cooperatives. The Complainant offers a wide range of food, and non-food products and services relating to wellness, travel and catering. The offerings include travel agencies, cultural institutions, museums and magazines, restaurants, water and fitness parks, golf parks, pension funds and foundations, and Banking.<\/p>\n
The ‘Migros Group’ includes the Migros Industrie companies, various retail, healthcare and travel companies as well as several foundations. In organisational terms, all these companies fall under six broad divisions: Nutrition and Enjoyment; Health; Lifestyle and Home; Payment, Investment and Finance; Other companies and Foundations and Pension Schemes.<\/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 <migrosgruppe.com>.<\/span><\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/p>\n COMPLAINANT:<\/strong> According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the disputed domain name as it fully incorporates the Complainant’s well-known trademark MIGROS, as the main and dominant element, with an addition of a word \"gruppe\" (which means \"group\" in German language).<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant also contends that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.COM” does not differentiate the domain name from the trademark (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), paragraphs 1.7 and 1.11).<\/span><\/p>\n Therefore, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's NANUSHKA trademark within the meaning of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The Complainant contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and is not related in any way with the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n Neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark MIGROS, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/p>\n Also, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, that is, it is passively held.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant provides that the Respondent uses the Complainant's details in the WHOIS Information and the MX servers are activated. Accordingly, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is being used, or intended to be used, for phishing or other fraudulent purposes using e-mail IDs ending with ‘@migrosgruppe.com’ and is intended to exclusively “pass off” as the Complainant herein and have a free ride on its reputation and goodwill. The impersonation of the Complainant through the WHOIS along with active MX records only reinforces the (false) association between the Complainant and the disputed domain name. Consequently, the Complainant also requests that the Respondent's details be redacted in the decision as far as they use the Complainant's details.<\/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 states that the disputed domain name comprises the Complainant's distinctive trademark MIGROS. Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and the immense popularity and goodwill enjoyed by the Complainant's trademark globally by virtue of its open, continuous and extensive use and its impeccable market reputation,<\/span> it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. Even a preliminary search over the Internet or survey among the public in general reveals that the “<\/span>MIGROS” brand is associated with the Complainant, and it has been used by them in their trade and business for decades.<\/span><\/p>\n In addition, the Complainant provides that the Respondent intends to send suspicious emails using the configured Google mail servers. The Respondent has provided the WHOIS information of the Complainant for the disputed domain name likely to create the false impression that the disputed domain name is owned and controlled by the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is currently inactive, which accordingly, in the circumstances of this case, the inactive status of the disputed domain name comprises bad faith use under the doctrine of passive holding.<\/span><\/p>\n Therefore, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.<\/span><\/p>\n In conclusion, the Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it. RESPONDENT:<\/b><\/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>\n Redaction of Respondent Details<\/u><\/p>\n Paragraph 4(j) of the Policy reads, “[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision.” Panels have carefully carved out identity theft as an “exceptional case” that justifies redacting of victims’ personal information.<\/p>\n The Complainant requests the Respondent's details be redacted in the decision as far as they use the Complainant's details.<\/p>\n The Panel has determined it is appropriate to redact the Respondent’s identity from this Decision.<\/span><\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Barbora Donathová"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-10-09 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant owns several trademarks for the distinctive term \"MIGROS\" and the variations thereof. <\/span>The first trademark <\/strong>MIGROS <\/strong>was applied in 1966 as an international trademark under 17 classes and covers numerous EU, African and Asian countries, vide International Trademark Registration number 315524, registered on June 24, 1966. <\/span>The Complainant, thereafter, applied for numerous other trademarks and owns hundreds of registered trademarks for MIGROS. <\/span>The Complainant also relies on the goodwill and recognition that it has attained under the MIGROS Group.<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant and its affiliated companies \/ subsidiaries hold numerous domain names which encompass the <\/span>MIGROS <\/strong>mark, and these are used to advertise the Complainant’s goods and services across a wide range of territories around the world. These registrations include <migros.com>, <<\/span>migrosgroup.com>, <\/span><migros-shop.com> and <migros-online.com> among others.<\/span><\/p>\n Furthermore, the Complainant also has a strong social media presence with, for example, 127 thousand followers on Twitter (@migros), 189 thousand followers on Instagram (@migros), and 8 thousand followers on LinkedIn (@migros).<\/span><\/p>\n The disputed domain name <migrosgruppe.com> was registered on August 12, 2024.<\/span><\/p>",
"decision_domains": [],
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
• The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the protected mark<\/span><\/p>\n
• The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name
<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/b><\/p>\n