The Swatch Group AG, Swatch AG v Maria Ladoglina, Sabz Logistics

WIPO Case No. D2025-1359

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

The Swatch Group AG, Swatch AG v. Maria Ladoglina, Sabz Logistics

Case No. D2025-1359

1. The Parties

The Complainants are The Swatch Group AG, and Swatch AG, Switzerland, internally represented.

The Respondent is Maria Ladoglina, Sabz Logistics, United Kingdom.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <kr-swatchgroup.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 3, 2025. On
April 4, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On April 4, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name
which differed from the named Respondent (Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on April 4,
2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the
Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint on

April 8, 2025.

The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amended Complaint, satisfied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 8, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 28, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 29, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Anna Carabelli as the sole panelist in this matter on May 13, 2025. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainants, The Swatch Group AG and its subsidiary company Swatch AG, are leading designers, manufacturers, sellers, and retailers of wristwatches, with branded retail stores throughout the world as well as numerous e-commerce shops.

The Complainants hold several registrations for the trademarks SWATCH GROUP and SWATCH in various jurisdictions, including but not limited to the following:

a) The Complainant, The Swatch Group AG, holds:

- The International trademark SWATCH GROUP No. 1187122, registered on September 18, 2013, in

classes 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, and 45;

- The Switzerland trademark SWATCH GROUP No. 596749, registered on February 11, 2010, in

classes 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, and 45;

- The Hong Kong, China trademark SWATCH GROUP No. 304468456, registered from March 21,

2018, in classes 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, and 45;

b) The Complainant, Swatch AG, holds:

- The International trademark SWATCH No. 506123, registered on September 9, 1986, in class 14;

- The China trademark SWATCH No. 232954, registered on September 15, 1985, in class 14;

- The Japan trademark SWATCH No. 2184860, registered on October 31, 1989, in classes 14, and 23.

The Complainants’ SWATCH branded products and services are marketed and/or promoted also online on the Complainants’ official websites “ and “ The Complainants’ subsidiaries in the Republic of Korea also use the domain name <kr.swatchgroup.com>.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 26, 2025 and does not resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainants

The Complainants contend that they have satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainants contend that:

- Due to extensive use and advertising, their SWATCH GROUP and SWATCH trademarks are

distinctive and well known worldwide, as recognized in former UDRP cases (see Swatch AG v. Boomin
Jeong, WIPO Case No. D2018-2627; Swatch Ltd. v. Uli Kumli, Social-Media. Club, WIPO Case No.
D2016-2338; Swatch AG/The Swatch Group AG v. Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2022-462; Swatch

AG/The Swatch Group AG v. Llanes, Lourdes, WIPO Case No. D2022-4344);

- The disputed domain name is respectively identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’

trademarks SWATCH GROUP and SWATCH, since it consists of the Complainants’ exact marks with the
addition of the letters “kr” (which could be interpreted as the country code for the Republic of Korea),

page 3

followed by a hyphen. The disputed domain name is an intentional misspelling of the Complainants’
<kr.swatchgroup.com> domain name which is used by the Complainants’ subsidiaries in the Republic of

Korea;

- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since: (i) the

Complainants have not authorized or somehow given consent to the Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name, (ii) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and (iii) the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use;

- The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The structure of the

disputed domain name shows that the Respondent registered it having in mind the Complainants’ marks
SWATCH GROUP and SWATCH, and reflects the Respondent’s clear intention to create an association with
and take advantage of the Complainants’ widely known trademarks. Passive holding, which is the case

here, demonstrates bad faith.

- It is very likely that the disputed domain name could be used for a phishing campaign.

Based on the above, the Complainants request the disputed domain name be transferred to the

Complainants.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 Preliminary Issue: Consolidation - Multiple Complainants

Paragraph 10(e) of the UDRP Rules grants a panel the power to consolidate multiple domain name disputes. In assessing whether a complaint filed by multiple complainants may be brought against a single respondent, panels look at whether (i) the complainants have a specific common grievance against the respondent, or the respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected the complainants in a similar fashion, and (ii)

it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel
Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.1.

In the present case, the Complainants are in the same corporate group. Given the legal relationship between the Complainants, the Panel is of the view that they have a common interest in the proceeding, taking into consideration that (i) they have a common grievance against the Respondent because the Respondent registered the disputed domain name incorporating both of the Complainants’ trademarks; (ii) both Complainants are represented by a single representative; and (iii) they are seeking the same remedy.

The Panel finds that there is sufficient nexus to allow the Complainants to jointly bring this Complaint. In these circumstances consolidation would be equitable and procedurally efficient.

6.2 Substantive Issues

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide the Complaint based on the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

page 4

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainants must prove each of the following:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the

Complainants have rights;

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which for the purposes of paragraph
4(a)(iii) of the Policy, shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances, any one of which, if found by the Panel, shall be evidence of the Respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy above.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainants’ trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Complainants have shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the
Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel finds the entirety of the Complainants’ registered trademarks SWATCH GROUP and SWATCH are reproduced and recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain such as “.com” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is typically disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

Although the addition of other terms, here the letters “kr” followed by a hyphen, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of the above does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

page 5

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainants have established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainants’ prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Furthermore, the Panel notes the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainants. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

In the present case, the Panel notes that given the reputation of the Complainants trademarks SWATCH GROUP and SWATCH (also recognized in previous UDRP decisions referred to in the Complaint), it is difficult to believe that the Respondent did not have in mind the Complainants’ marks when registering the disputed domain name, incorporating the Complainants’ well-known trademarks. This suggests that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with a deliberate intent to create an impression of an association with the Complainants, and to mislead Internet users into believing the disputed domain name is an official domain name of the Complainants, also due to the fact that the Complainants own similar domain names, including the domain name <kr.swatchgroup.com> (where the abbreviation “kr” is the country code for the Republic of Korea), which is used by the Complainants’ Korean subsidiaries.

Prior panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or well-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

As to bad faith use, the evidence submitted with the Complaint shows that the disputed domain name does not point to an active website.

Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Although panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, and (iii) the respondent’s concealing of its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the reputation of the Complainants’ trademarks as international established marks, the composition of the disputed domain name as discussed above, and the failure of the Respondent to submit a response, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

page 6

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <kr-swatchgroup.com> be transferred to the Complainants.

/Anna Carabelli/
Anna Carabelli
Sole Panelist
Date: May 27, 2025