WIPO Domain Name Decision D2010-0694 for allianz-global.com

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Allianz SE v. Antonio Porchia Case No. D2010-0694 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Allianz SE (formerly known as Allianz AG) of Munich, Germany, represented by an internal representative.

The Respondent is Antonio Porchia of Rome, Italy. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH dba . 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 3, 2010. On May 3, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Key-Systems GmbH dba a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 4, 2010, 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 verified that the 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 10, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 30, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 31, 2010.

The Center appointed Masato Dogauchi as the sole panelist in this matter on June 8, 2010. 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 Complainant is a German company, which is one of the oldest and largest international insurance and financial services firms in the world. Since its inception, it has continuously operated under the name of Allianz, and has used the ALLIANZ mark in connection with its insurance, healthcare and financial services products. Over the years, it has devoted substantial resources and efforts to building goodwill in the ALLIANZ family of marks, which is used to distinguish Allianz's products from all other products in the same class. Total revenues of the Allianz Group worldwide in the year 2008 added up to EUR 92.6 billion and in 2009 to EUR 97.4 billion.

The Complainant owns, directly, exclusive rights in the ALLIANZ mark and derivatives thereof in many jurisdictions around the world. Under the ALLIANZ mark, it offers a wide range of insurance, underwriting, reinsurance and financial services.

The following table lists some of the above-mentioned rights.

- ALLIANZ: International Registration, No. 447004, registered on September 12, 1979;

- ALLIANZ: International Registration, No. 714618, registered on May 4, 1999;

- ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS: International Registration, No. 859170, registered on June 30, 2005;

- ALLIANZ: German Registration, No. 987481, registered on July 11, 1979;

- ALLIANZ: German Registration, No. 39927827, registered on July 16, 1999;

- ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS: German Registration, No. 30449227, registered on January 21, 2005.

The Complainant also owns domain names which are registered in the name of Allianz Shared Infrastructure Services GmbH, the German IT (an affiliate company of the Complainant) as follows:

- ;

- ;

- ;

- ;

-

On the other hand, the Respondent is a natural person living in Rome, Italy, who registered the disputed domain name with Key-Systems GmbH on January 27, 2010. According to the Registrar, this registration is maintained and the expiration date is January 27, 2011. The registered address of the Respondent is in Rome, Italy, and the Respondent's street name can be identified there. The phone number and email address of the Respondent have also been confirmed by the Registrar.

The language of the Registration Agreement is English.

The Complainant tried to contact the Respondent at the address in the Registrar's database several times but was unable to deliver a notice of warning – the advice of receipt was returned marked “addressee unknown”. The Respondent also did not reply to the Complainant's messages sent by fax and by email. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant

With regard to the first requirement (paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy), the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, emphasizing that the disputed domain name just adds “global” to the Complainant's ALLIANZ trademark. In this regard, the Complainant points out that its subsidiaries, namely Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty and Allianz Global Investors, both of which are large companies in their respective field of business, use the descriptor “Global” in their branding.

With regard to the second requirement (paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy), that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent holds no trade mark registrations for any “Allianz” mark and has never received a license or any other form of authorization or consent from the Complainant to make use of the ALLIANZ mark.

The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent's activities do not correspond to any of the circumstances set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, that would evidence any rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name, for the following reasons: before any notice to him of this dispute, the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services (paragraph 4(c)(i)); the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name (paragraph 4(c)(ii)); and the Respondent is also not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name (paragraph 4(c)(iii)).

Therefore, the Complainant argues, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

With regard to the third requirement (paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy) that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith, the Complainant asserts as follows:

- since the Allianz trademark is very well-known, especially with regard to insurance and financial affairs, it cannot be reasonably argued that the Respondent could have been unaware of the trademark when registering the disputed domain name;

- the fact that the Italian Respondent has combined the German term “Allianz” and the descriptor “Global” demonstrates his clear intent on the one hand to take unfair advantage of the valuable brands “Allianz” and “Allianz Global Investors” (one of the Complainant's subsidiaries), and on the other hand to confuse Internet customers;

- the Respondent claims to be “an independent financial advisory service designed to provide convenient access to the full spectrum of products within the ambit of the investment market, and asset management” under the menu item “SERVICE OVERVIEW” on the main page of the disputed domain name.

- the Respondent sent out emails under the name “Frank Johnson” from “[ ]@”containing investment information to members of the public, purporting to work for Allianz Global. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings

As the registration agreement of the disputed domain name incorporates the Policy, this proceeding is to be administered in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and Supplemental Rules.

This Panel was properly constituted in accordance with the Policy and has jurisdiction to decide the dispute over the disputed domain name. And, as the disputed domain name registration agreement is in English, the language of this proceeding is English in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Rules.

The Panel has found that the procedural steps taken by the WIPO Center are in compliance with the provisions of the Rules. Notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent did not submit any Response within the time periods under the Rules, the Panel will proceed to a decision on the Complaint in accordance with paragraph 14 of the Rules.

With regard to the merits of the case, according to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:

– the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (Identical or Confusingly Similar);

– the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (Rights or Legitimate Interests);

– the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith (Registered and Used in Bad Faith).

The Panel will verify these elements on account of the evidence submitted by the Complainant only, since the Respondent did not respond nor submit anything at all. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has proven its rights in the internationally registered trademarks ALLIANZ and ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS, which are registered, inter alia, in Germany.

The core part of the disputed domain name is identical with or confusingly similar to the above trademarks, and the word “global” is just a common or generic term.

According to previous UDRP decisions, panels have considered that the incorporation of trademarks in their entirety is in general sufficient to establish that the disputed domain names were identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's registered trademarks. For instance, see, Alstom, Bouygues v. Webmaster,WIPO Case No. D2008-0281; AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally,WIPO Case No. D2005-0758.

In addition, according to previous UDRP decisions, mere addition of common or generic terms is, in general, insufficient to make a disputed domain name distinctive such that it is not confusingly similar to the complainant's registered trademark. For instance, see, Alstom v. FM Laughna,WIPO Case No. D2007-1736; Groupe Auchan v. Jakub Kamma,WIPO Case No. D2007-0565.

The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is identical or, at least, confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

There is no evidence which shows that the Complainant has authorized the Respondent to register or use the trademarks ALLIANZ as a domain name. The Panel is satisfied on the current record that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name which the Respondent has not rebutted.

The Respondent has not demonstrated any of the circumstances set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.

The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

According to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, both bad faith registration and bad faith use must be established.

With regard to bad faith registration of the disputed domain name, the fact that the Complainant has used the name Allianz and has registered the trademarks for many years in various jurisdictions, especially in Europe, has been proven by the documents submitted by the Complainant. Considering that the registered address of the Respondent is in Italy, it is reasonable to assume that the Respondent had prior knowledge of the ALLIANZ mark when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 27, 2010. Accordingly, the Panel finds that registration in bad faith in this case can be inferred from these circumstances, also noting that the Respondent has not submitted any rebuttal against the Complainant's assertions. The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

With regard to the use in bad faith, on the other hand, it has been established by the Complainant that:

- the Respondent claims to be “an independent financial advisory service designed to provide convenient access to the full spectrum of products within the ambit of the investment market, and asset management” under the menu item “SERVICE OVERVIEW” on the main page of the disputed domain name.

- the Respondent appears to have sent out emails containing investment information to members of the public, purporting to work for the Complainant.

The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent's website appears to be the homepage of “Allianz Global”. When an Internet user clicks on the menu item “SERVICE OVERVIEW” on the main page, the user is directed to text which reads “Allianz Global is an independent financial advisory service designed to provide convenient access to the full spectrum of products within the ambit of the investment market, and asset management. We also provide full range of customized investment services for medium to large corporations.” The Respondent's homepage also displays a heading “THE WAY TO FIND US”, under which contact information as well as a “CONTACT FORM” with a “submit” button appears. This shows that the Respondent is pretending to be a financial service entity with a special relationship with the Complainant.

These facts lead to the determination that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

Masato Dogauchi
Sole Panelist

Dated: June 22, 2010

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy