The Complainant is a Scottish alcohol manufacturer that has been producing scotch whisky since 1881.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Panel recognizes the distinctive and well-known character of Complainant´s BRUICHLADDICH trademark.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant maintains a portfolio of domain names incorporating BRUICHLADDICH trademark. As such <bruichladdich.com> registered on February 4 1999 which redirects to its official website.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names <bruichladdichstore.shop> and <getbruichladdich.shop> were registered on April 27, 2026 and May 5, 2026 respectively, and both redirect to a website displaying the Complainant´s logo and offering the Complainant´s goods.<\/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 names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
THE COMPLAINANT <\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In particular, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names consist of an addition of generic terms, in this case, “store” and “get” which are not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion. Further, by using the TLD <.shop>, the disputed domain names remain connected to the BRUICHLADDICH mark. Thus, the dispute domain names are confusingly similar for the purposes of the first element.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the owner of the disputed domain names. Thus, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Besides, the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant, nor has it been authorized or licensed to make any use of the BRUICHLADDICH mark, nor to register the mark as a domain name.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names redirect to a website where the Respondent displays the Complainant´s logo and offers its products, disrupting z´the Complainant´s business and, in an attempt to attract users by impersonating the Complainant.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Regarding the third requirement, the Complainant supports a finding on bad faith registration and use, given the reputation of the BRUICHLADDICH mark. Further, such previous knowledge is apparent on the website that the disputed domain names redirect since it uses the Complainant´s logo and the sale of its products.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant also states that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names to create confusion with the Complainant´s trademark only for commercial gain.<\/p>\n
THE RESPONDENT<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/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": "
Preliminary Procedural Issue: Request for Consolidation of the Complaint:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are under common control and thus requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules.<\/p>\n
As noted, the disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request.<\/p>\n
Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.<\/p>\n
In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties<\/p>\n
Regarding common control, the Panel finds that both are registered with the same Registrar, with upcoming registration dates, redirecting to the same website, and similar domain name composition.<\/p>\n
As regards common control, the Panel notes that the Respondent targeted BRUICHLADDICH, is using the same Registrar, with upcoming registration dates, and both redirect to the same website. <\/p>\n
Concerning fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
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
<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Manuel Moreno-Torres" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-06-12 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner of the BRUICHLADDICH trademark in different jurisdictions. By way of example, an international trademark with registration number 929602, registered on May 24, 2007.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "bruichladdichstore.shop": "TRANSFERRED", "getbruichladdich.shop": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }