The Complainant was founded in 1925 in Zurich as a private enterprise. 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 organization 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 organizational 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>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on September 30, 2024 and it does not resolve to any active website. According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the disputed domain name was used to send e-mails that impersonate C-level executive of the Complainant. <\/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 Complainant<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it. In particular, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MIGROS trademark as this trademark is contained in its entirety within the disputed domain name. Further, the Complainant contends that \".com\" gTLD is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded.<\/p>\n Regarding the second UDRP element, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant. The Respondent is also not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to send fraudulent phishing e-mails impersonating C-level executive of the Complainant and use of the disputed domain name for illegal activity can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.<\/p>\n With respect to the third UDRP element, the Complainant holds that the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to another’s mark, despite actual or even constructive knowledge of the mark holder’s rights, constitutes bad faith registration and use, pursuant to Policy. The Complainant asserts that it is inconceivable that the registration of the disputed domain name was made without the actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business, given the extensive use and well-known status of the Complainant’s MIGROS trademark. Further, the use of the disputed domain name for phishing and impersonation of the Complainant's executives clearly indicates use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. <\/p>\n The Respondent<\/strong><\/strong><\/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. The Panel has issued Procedural order No. 1 requesting from the Complainant to clarify remedy sought by the complaint and to clarify whether there are any other ongoing legal proceedings regarding the disputed domain name. The Complainant has provided the response to procedural order which is satisfactory for the Panel to move forward with the decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Stefan Bojovic"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-12-05 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant has demonstrated ownership of rights in the MIGROS trademark for the purposes of standing to file a UDRP Complaint.<\/span><\/p>\n In particular, the Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for MIGROS, including the following: <\/span><\/p>\n - International trademark registration No. 315524 for MIGROS<\/span>, registered on June 23, 1966;<\/span><\/p>\n - European Union trademark registration No. 000744912 for MIGROS, registered on July 27, 2000; and<\/span><\/p>\n - European Union trademark registration<\/span> No. 003466265<\/span> for MIGROS<\/span>, registered on October 29, 2005. <\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant also refers to ownership over a number of domain names that incorporate its MIGROS<\/span> <\/span>trademark, including the following: <migros.com<\/span>>, registered on February 9, 1998 and <migrosgroup.com>, registered on April 8, 2015.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"migros-gruppe.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}