The Complainant is GALERIA, a German department store which was founded in 1897 as GALERIA Kaufhof GmbH. In 2020, the company was merged into GALERIA Karstadt Kaufhof. It is one of the biggest department store chains in Germany for more than 120 years GALERIA has been synonymous for department stores in Germany. Due to its continuous and ubiquitous presence in Germany and its growth, especially in the post-war period, the Complainant is known to the majority of German speaking consumers.<\/p>\n
The Complainant has retail shops in all major German cities. These are often in prominent locations, such as the popular Marienplatz in the center of Munich and the famous Alexanderplatz and Kurfürstendamm in Berlin. The Complainant's company name is also prominently displayed on the outside of the buildings. This means that virtually everyone visiting one of the retail stores comes in contact with the Manguun trademark.<\/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 states that<\/p>\n
1. the disputed domain name <manguunde.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s “Manguun” trademarks. First of all, \"manguun\" is identical to the “Manguun” trademark in its entirety. The further element “de” is clearly a descriptive postfix, i.e. an abbreviation for Germany\/Deutschland, which is designed to make consumers believe that this is the German website for an online shop for Manguun.<\/p>\n
2. The Complainant and its well-known Manguun trademark are virtually universally known in Germany. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for its Manguun trademarks. A simple Internet search for “Manguun” would have yielded many obvious references to the Complainant. That this was clear for the Respondent is evidenced by the fact that it is impersonating Complainant and attempting to attract users in order to generate income through advertisements or scamming consumers.<\/p>\n
3. On Respondent’s website under the disputed domain name, it addresses the company name as Manguun® with company residence in Berlin, but at the bottom of the page it lists the German address Kreuzstraße 26, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia. In the terms and conditions, the Respondent claims to be Manguun® Kleid, Schuhe, Jacke, Pullover GmbH, which does not exist on the German register. It is a fake company name with a fake address. Furthermore, Respondent is claiming that Manguun was founded 2015 in Berlin, which is untrue - as proven by the trademark register excerpts.<\/p>\n
4. Respondent also implemented fake terms and conditions for the sale of products and FAQs, inter alia \"Can I return an article?; Do I receive an invoice for my order?\". Furthermore, Respondent has created fake reviews of persons who allegedly ordered products from the website.<\/p>\n
5. The Respondent is undoubtedly aware of the Complainant and its Manguun trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. It is literally using the trademark for an online shop as a scam to trick consumers. The website only contains the trademark Manguun and no information about different trademarks or labels, and the Respondent pretends to be the owner of the trademark. The website also pretends to be offering clothing, jewellery and watches, and also uses \"Manguun\" as its company name. On the landing page, there is a section called: \"Manguun-Sales Today\" and below there are several pictures of clothing with the trademark manguun, including realistic prices in €. The use of the original product photos also constitutes an infringement of copyright law.<\/p>\n
6, Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of products or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair purpose. On the contrary, Respondent is operating under the disputed domain a website that is designed to look like a web shop of the trademark manguun, using AI pictures of clothing, but also real pictures of Manguun clothing. Thus, the website's purpose is to generate income through advertisement by luring customers of the Complainant, who expect to buy Manguun clothing. Therefore, Respondent is pretending to be active in the same business as Complainant and is directly competing with Complainant’s web shop under www.galeria.de.<\/p>\n
7. The disputed domain name was apparently deliberately chosen by the Respondent’s to mislead consumers into believing that the services were provided or at least affiliated with the Complainant. Only, this misrepresentation of an affiliation with the Complainant enabled the Respondent to attract consumers to its services. This will also have a negative impact on the well-known reputation of the Complainant's trademark, because the consumers could be annoyed that they cannot buy from the website.<\/p>\n
8. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name in a clear attempt to pass itself off as the Complainant, misleadingly diverting the Complainant’s customers in a manner that cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services and supporting the conclusion that Respondent registered and is using <manguunde.com> in bad faith.<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
The Respondent has not appeared formally or informally to controvert the evidence submitted by the Complainant.<\/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": [ "Gerald Levine Ph.D, Esq." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-09-08 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations consisting of \/ with the element Manguun in various jurisdictions worldwide, in particular the following: <\/p>\n
- National registrations, e.g.;<\/p>\n
- German trademark registration no. 30761153 “MANGUUN” with priority of September 18, 2007, inter alia for international classes 14, 18, 25, i.e. jewellery, watches, bags and clothing;<\/p>\n
- German figurative trademark registration no. 30602069 “manguun” with priority of January 12, 2006, inter alia for international classes 14, 18, 25, i.e. jewellery, watches, bags and clothing;<\/p>\n
- IR\/EUTM registrations, e.g.;<\/p>\n
- International trademark registration with designation to European Union no. 965106 “MANGUUN” with priority of February 8, 2008, inter alia for international classes 14, 18, 25;<\/p>\n
- International trademark registration with designation to European Union no. 910469 with priority of July 7, 2006, inter alia for international classes 14, 18, 25.<\/p>\n
<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "manguunde.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }