{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108021",
    "time_of_filling": "2025-10-06 13:59:51",
    "domain_names": [
        "migros.pro"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "SILKA AB",
    "respondent": [
        "Domain  Privacy (Domain Name Privacy Inc)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>The Complainant was founded in 1925 in Zurich as a private enterprise. From its establishment 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 is active in manufacturing and wholesaling through more than 30 companies in many commercial areas, including supermarkets (Migros), banking (Migros Bank), fuel stations (Migrol), travel services (Hotelplan), convenience stores (Migrolino) and book retail (Ex Libris).<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name was registered on September 15, 2025 and it resolves to a parking page with sponsored links (pay-per-click links or PPC links) which,&nbsp;<em>inter alia<\/em>, relates to \"online shops\", \"online markets\" and various combinations thereof that contain MIGROS trademark.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p><strong>The Complainant<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.&nbsp;In particular, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or, at least, confusingly similar to its MIGROS trademark as this trademark is contained in its entirety within the disputed domain name. Further, the Complainant contends that \".pro\" gTLD does not have capacity to dispel confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the MIGROS trademark for the purposes of the Policy.<\/p>\n<p>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 by the Complainant to make any use of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is also not commonly known by the disputed domain name.&nbsp;The Respondent has used the disputed domain name for website with PPC links displaying hyperlinks that are related to online retail, a field in which the Complainant and its trademark are well-known. The Complainant states that using a domain name to host a PPC website does not present a <em>bona fide <\/em>offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant&rsquo;s trademark or otherwise mislead Internet users. Finally, the Complainant asserts that disputed domain name solely reproduces the Complainant&rsquo;s well-known MIGROS trademark, being also extremely similar to the Complainant&rsquo;s domain names &lt;migros.ch&gt; and &lt;migrospro.ch&gt; and as a result of this, it is more than likely that the disputed domain name will lead Internet users to believe that it is associated with the Complainant and its activities, when it is not the case. Therefore, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name implies a high risk of affiliation with the Complainant and its activities.<\/p>\n<p>With respect to the third UDRP element, the Complainant holds that its MIGROS trademark was registered decades before the registration of the disputed domain name, that its trademark is well-known as the Complainant is recognized as one of the largest retailers in the world and that due to these facts it is clear that a very simple degree of due diligence would have made any prospective registrant of the domain name aware of the Complainant&rsquo;s rights in the MIGROS trademark.&nbsp;Further, the use of the disputed domain name for website with PPC links competing with goodwill of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark,&nbsp;makes a clear indication that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant&rsquo;s MIGROS trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of said website. Such circumstances are evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": [
        "Stefan Bojovic"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-11-17 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p><span>The Complainant has demonstrated ownership of rights in the MIGROS trademark for the purposes of standing to file a UDRP Complaint.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>In particular, the Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for MIGROS, including the following:&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>- International trademark registration No. 315524&nbsp;for<span>&nbsp;MIGROS<\/span><span>, registered on June 23, 1966;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>- European Union trademark registration No. 000744912 for MIGROS, registered on July 27, 2000; and<\/span><\/p>\n<p>-<span>&nbsp;<\/span><span>European Union trademark registration<\/span><span>&nbsp;<\/span>No.<span>&nbsp;<\/span><span>003466265<\/span><span>&nbsp;<\/span>for<span>&nbsp;MIGROS<\/span>, registered on October 29, 2005.<span>&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant also refers to ownership of domain names that incorporate its<span>&nbsp;MIGROS<\/span><span>&nbsp;<\/span>trademark, including the following: &lt;<span>migros.ch<\/span>&gt;, registered <span>before January 1 1996 (as indicated in WHOIS for .ch ccTLD)<\/span> and &lt;<span>migrospro.ch<\/span>&gt;, registered on April 12, 2013.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "migros.pro": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}