Swisswine.com, Swisswineweek.com

The timeline behind swisswine.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Martin Flegr v. Swiss Wine Promotion AG Case No. D2026-0175 1. The Parties The Complainant is Martin Flegr, Switzerland, internally represented. The Respondent is Swiss Wine Promotion AG, Switzerland, represented by id est avocats Sàrl, Switzerland. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <swisswine.com> and <swisswineweek.com> are registered with Infomaniak Network SA (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 14, 2026. On January 16, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 22, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center sent an email communication in French and English to the Complainant on January 28, 2026, requesting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint due to certain missing formalities and informing the parties that according to the Registrar, the language of the registration agreement is French. On January 30, 2026, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint and confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. 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 in French and English, and the proceedings commenced on February 5, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 25, 2026. On February 23, 2026, the Respondent sent an email communication to the Center requesting an extension to file a Response in accordance with paragraph 5(b) Rules. The due date for Response was extended to March 1, 2026. On page 2 February 27, 2026, the Respondent sent an email communication to the Center requesting an extension to file a Response in accordance with paragraph 5(e) Rules. The due date for Response was extended to March 3, 2026. The Response was filed in French with the Center on March 2, 2026. In its Response, the Respondent objected to the Complainant’s request regarding the language of proceeding and requested that French be the language of proceeding. On March 3, 2026, the Complainant submitted a Supplemental Filing with additional exhibits. On March 20, 2026, the Respondent submitted a Supplemental Filing taking position on the Complainant’s Supplemental Filing. The Center appointed Anne-Virginie La Spada, Marina Perraki, and Jacques de Werra as panelists in this matter on April 2, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of 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 Complainant is an individual and entrepreneur domiciled in Switzerland who is active in the on-line sale of Swiss wines on an international level. The Complainant owns the following trademark registrations: - Swiss trademark registration no. 732772 for SWISS WINE & design, registered on June 25, 2019, in class 33; - International trademark registration no. 1510292 for SWISS WINE & design, registered on October 19, 2019, in class 33, designating several regions/countries among which the European Union, the United Kingdom and the United States of America (“United States”); - United States trademark registration no. 6166384 for SWISS WINE & design, registered on October 6, 2020, in class 33. The certificate of registration delivered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) describes the Complainant’s trademark as follows: “the mark consists of the stylized wording “SWISS WINE” in black to the left of an incomplete white cross design outlined in silver and with a stylized letter “S” emanating from the center in red and black lines”. The same certificate mentions the following disclaimer: “No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the following apart from the mark as shown: “SWISS WINE”.” The Complainant is the owner of numerous domain names consisting of its SWISS WINE trademark and a country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”), such as <swisswine.fr>, <swisswine.in> or <swisswine.kr>, among others. The Complainant operates its on-line sales business through such websites. The Respondent is a Swiss entity created on August 7, 2006. Initially established as an association under the name “Association Swiss Wine Promotion”, the Respondent was converted into a limited company and changed its name into Swiss Wine Promotion AG on July 6, 2017. The company’s purpose is to promote Swiss wine and, in particular, its sales both in Switzerland and abroad. The Respondent entered in 2021 into an agreement with the umbrella organization for the Swiss wine industry, namely the “Interprofession de la Vigne et des Vins Suisses” (“IVVS”). Under this agreement, the IVVS has expressly designated the Respondent as the sole body responsible for promoting Swiss wines. The Respondent’s tasks include coordinating all communications regarding Swiss wines at the national level and implementing, in coordination with the regions and partners, a promotional strategy at the national and international levels. page 3 Furthermore, the Respondent’s role has been recognized by the “Federal Office of Agriculture” (“FOAG”) within the framework of agricultural sales promotion measures provided for by federal legislation. In this capacity, the Respondent assumes operational responsibility for the proper implementation of measures co- financed by the Swiss Confederation, including the submission of grant applications, the administrative and financial management of federal funds, compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, as well as the preparation of the required activity reports and financial statements. The Respondent owns the following trademark registrations: - Swiss trademark registration no. 695518 for SWISS WINE & design, registered on November 18, 2016, in classes 16, 35, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 45; - Swiss trademark registration no. 690667 for SWISS WINE WEEK & design, registered on July 21, 2016, in classes 35, 41, and 42. The Respondent filed a Swiss trademark application no. 02356/2026 on February 9, 2026, for SWISS WINE & design in classes 32 and 33. The Respondent owns the domain name <swisswine.ch> since November 4, 2014. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <swisswineweek.com> on June 30, 2016. The Respondent acquired the disputed domain name <swisswine.com> on December 13, 2023. This disputed domain name was originally registered on May 6, 2004. In January 2025, the Respondent announced on social networks that it transitioned its online presence to the disputed domain name <swisswine.com>. Both disputed domain names have since been connected to active websites operated by the Respondent. The Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent on January 5, 2026, and a reminder on January 12, 2026. The Respondent did not react to these letters. The Complainant also filed two trademark reporting forms with Meta alleging the presence of infringing content on the Respondent’s Facebook and Instagram accounts. On January 13, 2026, Meta confirmed the removal of the reported contents. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names exhibit a confusing similarity that infringes upon its protected trademarks. The Complainant further contends that it owns prior rights for class 33 goods (i.e., wines) in markets where it operates its B2C and D2C commercial network, whereas the Respondent's activity focuses purely on B2B promotions and events, which falls under service classes (35, 41), explicitly excluding class 33. This shows, according to the Complainant, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent’s transition to the disputed domain name <swisswine.com> in January 2025 proves a lack of established legitimate interest prior to this recent activation. page 4 The Complainant asserts that the Respondent was aware of its existence before it acquired the disputed domain name <swisswine.com> in 2023. The Complainant relies on comments posted by “@swisswine.it” or “@swisswine.fr” (or other Instagram accounts of the Complainant) on the Instagram account of the Respondent in 2019 and 2020. The Complainant also considers that the activation of the disputed domain name <swisswine.com> long after its own trademarks constitutes use in bad faith. According to the Complainant, the Respondent’s continued expansion of its use of the disputed domain names in recent years, notably in India and Korea where the Complainant operates local platforms, and the marketing of the Respondent’s services at major international events after the introduction of the present proceeding, demonstrate a calculated attempt at exploiting the Complainant’s global reputation and amount to use in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied all three of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names. The Respondent holds the view that the Complainant does not own exclusive rights to the terms “swisswine” or “Swiss Wine” because such terms are generic and descriptive when used in relation to Swiss wine. There can be no likelihood of confusion between signs that share only elements devoid of distinctive character. The Respondent has rights to the disputed domain names: its name has included “Swiss Wine” since 2006, and the official role entrusted to it by the FOAG for the promotion of Swiss wine is sufficient to establish a legitimate interest. Furthermore, the Respondent owns trademark registrations obtained well before the registration of the Respondent’s trademarks. The Respondent has been using the domain name <swisswine.ch> for years before it finalized the transition of its website to the disputed domain name <swisswine.com> in early 2025. At the same time, the Respondent made its domain name <swisswineweek.ch> redirect to its domain name <swisswineweek.com>. These circumstances demonstrate that the Respondent used the disputed domain names (or names corresponding to the disputed domain names) in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services before the Complainant registered its trademarks and well before any notice of the dispute. The Respondent disputes that it acted in bad faith in any manner. The use of the disputed domain names is consistent with the Respondent’s purpose and field of activities. The recent use of the disputed domain name <swisswine.com> following its acquisition does not reflect any bad faith. The transition to this disputed domain name by the Respondent aimed to improve the visibility and overall accessibility of the Respondent and its activities, which are supported by stakeholders in the Swiss wine industry and the relevant Swiss authorities. The Respondent was not aware of the trademark of the Complainant and has not created any likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’ mark or website. Since the Respondent started its activity before the Complainant, the Respondent could not have aimed any disruption of the Complainant’s business. Therefore, any allegation of bad faith is ill founded. Finally, the Respondent requested a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is French. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. page 5 The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English. It argued that the disputed domain names use the global generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, that both parties are active in international commerce where English is the standard language, and that translating the entire proceedings would cause undue delay and significant additional costs. The Respondent requested that the language of the proceeding be French, claiming that the language of the registration agreement and of all its communications with the Registrar is French, that both parties reside in the same country, namely Switzerland, where English is not an official language. The Respondent considers that there is in such circumstances no reason to depart from the rule according to which the language of the registration agreement shall be the language of the proceeding. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.5.1). The arguments put forward by the Complainant do not convince the Panel. Domain names with the gTLD “.com” are not reserved for uses in English, and the fact that the parties operate internationally is not sufficient per se to conclude that English should be the language of the proceeding. As to the issue of translation costs that the Complainant would incur, the Panel is of the view that translating the amended Complaint and Supplemental Filing, which have together a total length of 5 pages, would not necessitate any significant expense given the availability of translation tools. The Panel notes also that the Complainant does not allege that it does not understand French. Its Supplemental Filing purports to offer “focused clarification in response to specific factual assertions first raised in the Respondent’s response”. The Panel considers therefore that the Complainant had no difficulty in understanding said assertions even though the Response was filed in French. That said, the Respondent has not alleged that it – or its representative – would not understand English. Given the fact that the Respondent’s websites are available in English and that it organizes events in English speaking countries, the Panel assumes that the Respondent is able to understand and use English without difficulty. Such being the case, and in view of its decision to deny the Complaint for the reasons set out below, the Panel is of the view that it would be unnecessarily burdensome to require the Complainant to submit French translations of the Complaint and the Supplemental Filing. The Panel therefore determines that English shall be the language of the proceeding. Nevertheless, the Panel does not request that Respondent submit English translations of its Response and Supplemental Filing, since the Complainant and the three members of the Panel are able to understand French. Requesting such English translations would be unfair to the Respondent who was entitled to consider French as being the relevant language and would unduly delay the proceedings. Allowing each party to submit pleadings in a language in which it is familiar is an acceptable solution under the Rules. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.5.1 (last paragraph) and section 4.5.2 (last paragraph). Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English and will therefore issue its decision in English. 6.2 Supplemental filings Both parties have submitted unsolicited supplemental filings. Paragraph 10 of the Rules vests the panel with the authority to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence, and also to conduct the proceedings with due expedition. page 6 In the present case, the Complainant’s Supplemental Filing discusses certain elements of the Respondent’s response and the Respondent’s Supplemental Filing sets out the Respondent’s position on the Complainant newly developed arguments. The Supplemental Filings are therefore relevant to the case. As they were filed before the constitution of the Panel and are of reasonable length, the Panel decides to accept them both. 6.3 Substantive issues According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant must assert and prove each of the following: (i) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) the domain name registered by the respondent has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The fact that the registration of the disputed domain names predates the Complainant’s trademarks is not examined under the first element but may be relevant under the third element. WIPO Overview 3.1 section 1.1. The Panel observes that the Complainant’s trademark registrations concern trademarks that combine the words SWISS WINE in stylized form with a design element consisting of an incomplete cross outlined in silver and a stylized letter “S” emanating from the center in red and black lines. The Panel also observes that the Complainant’s United States registration includes an express disclaimer, in the following form: “No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the following apart from the mark as shown: “SWISS WINE”.” According to UDRP panelists, where design elements comprise the dominant portion of the relevant mark such that they effectively overtake the textual elements in prominence, or where the trademark registration entirely disclaims the textual elements (i.e., the scope of protection afforded to the mark is effectively limited to its stylized elements), panels may find that the complainant’s trademark registration is insufficient by itself to support standing under the UDRP. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.10. In the present case, only the United States registration includes an express disclaimer limiting the protection to the mark as shown. Absent such a disclaimer in the other trademark registrations invoked by the Complainant, the Panel will consider, for the purpose of the first element, that such registrations support standing under the UDRP. The entirety of the Complainant’s mark is reproduced within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name <swisswine.com> is identical to the Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of another term (here, “week”) in the disputed domain name <swisswineweek.com> may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between said disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. page 7 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. The Policy enumerates three illustrative examples of a respondent’s rights, namely (i) use of the domain name (or demonstrable plans for such use) with a bona fide offering; (ii) being commonly known by the domain name; or (iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Panel finds that the Respondent has been commonly known by a name correspondent to the disputed domain names. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.3. Indeed, the Respondent has established that it was named “Association Swiss Wine” from August 7, 2006, until July 6, 2017, and “Swiss Wine Promotion AG” from then on. Furthermore, the disputed domain names reproduce the word elements of trademarks of the Respondent registered in 2016, well before the Complainant obtained trademark registrations. This is also cause for finding that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain names. That the Respondent’s registrations do not cover class 33 for wines but other classes (as opposed to the Complainant’s marks) is irrelevant in this respect. The Panel also finds that, before notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent used the disputed domain names, and names correspondent to the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of services. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.2. Indeed, the Respondent has submitted ample evidence that it has used the disputed domain names (or names corresponding to the disputed domain names, in particular <swisswine.ch> and <swisswineweek.ch>) before receiving the cease-and-desist letters from the Complainant in January 2026. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has not been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith As the second element is not established, it would not be necessary to examine the third element. For the sake of completeness, the Panel will briefly address the requirement that a domain name be 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. The evidence in the case file as presented does not indicate that the Respondent’s aim in registering the disputed domain names was to profit from or exploit the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name <swisswineweek.com> was registered on June 30, 2016, years before the registration of the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant has not provided any evidence suggesting that it was active or had any on-line presence before 2019. It is accordingly obvious that the registration of the disputed domain name <swisswineweek.com> could not have targeted the Complainant or its mark. page 8 The disputed domain name <swissewine.com> was registered on May 6, 2004, but acquired by the Respondent only on December 13, 2023. UDRP panels have considered that acquisition of a domain name is to be treated like registration when assessing bad faith, irrespective of the original creation date. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.8. The Complainant has not provided convincing evidence that the Respondent was aware of its existence or of its trademarks before December 13, 2023. The Complainant relies on comments that it allegedly posted using its regional social media accounts (namely “@swisswine.fr”, “@swisswine.it”, “@swisswine.es”, “@swisswine.cz” and “@swisswine.uk”) under Instagram posts of the Respondent in 2019 and 2020. There is no sign that the Respondent acknowledged or replied to these comments. Even if the Respondent did see these Instagram comments and they were of the Complainant, it does not follow that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and of the Complainant’s trademarks. Furthermore, even if it were aware this does not mean that the Respondent was acting in bad faith because the Respondent also owned trademark rights at that time. Furthermore, the object of the Respondent is to promote Swiss wine and, as such, indirectly promote the activities of Complainant. The Complainant’s positive comments on the Instagram posts of the Respondent confirm that the Complainant did not consider the use of the terms “Swiss Wine” by the Respondent to be in bad faith or otherwise be infringing upon its trademark registrations or be detrimental to its business. The Panel finds that the Respondent did not register the disputed domain names in bad faith targeting of the Complainant or its trademark rights because the Complainant had no trademark rights at the time that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <swisswineweek.com>. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.8.1. Similarly, noting that the disputed domain name <swisswine.com> is being used by the Respondent in a largely identical manner to the corresponding domain name <swisswine.ch>, which the Respondent registered in 2014 and used until it transferred to the disputed domain name <swisswine.com>, the Panel finds that the Respondent did not register the disputed domain name <swisswine.com> in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, irrespective of its acquisition date after the registration of the Complainant’s marks. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.8.2. Finally, the fact that Meta removed content following a trademark complaint from the Complainant is not proof of any bad faith behavior on the part of the Respondent because the Complainant does not provide any information on the concerned contents and because factors for removal have not been established by the Complainant (and have not been shown to be similar to the UDRP). The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has not been established. D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, if after considering the submissions, the panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or to harass the domain-name holder, the panel shall declare in its decision that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. The mere lack of success of the complaint is not, on its own, sufficient to constitute reverse domain name hijacking. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.16. The Respondent requested a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. In view of the fact that the Complainant owns trademark rights and that at least one of the disputed domain names, namely <swisswine.com> was acquired by the Respondent and used after the registration of the Complainant’s marks, the Panel does not consider that the Complainant acted in bad faith or had to know that its Complainant could not succeed. The Panel finds that the Complaint does not constitute an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. page 9 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. /Anne-Virginie La Spada/ Anne-Virginie La Spada Presiding Panelist /Marina Perraki/ Marina Perraki Panelist /Jacques de Werra/ Jacques de Werra Panelist Date: April 21, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.