The Complainant is Allianz SE of Munich, Germany represented internally.
The Respondent is Everton Araujo of Manaus, Brazil. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 20, 2014. On March 20, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 21, 2014, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 28, 2014 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 28, 2014.
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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 3, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 23, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on April 25, 2014.
The Center appointed Dr. Hong Xue as the sole panelist in this matter on April 29, 2014. 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 provides worldwide insurance and financial services, including investment management. The Complainant's mark ALLIANZ has been used for more than 100 years and is registered in many countries and regions.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 27, 2013. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ALLIANZ, the registration and use of which by the Complainant long precedes the registration of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or confusingly similar
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), a complainant must prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. In line with such requirement, a complainant must prove its trademark right and the similarity between the disputed domain name and its trademark.
The Panel finds that before the registration of the disputed domain name the trademark ALLIANZ had been registered and used by the Complainant's insurance and financial service businesses around the world.
The disputed domain name is . Apart from the generic Top-Level Domain suffix ".com", the disputed domain name consists of "allianzinvestiments", which can easily be read as "allianz" and "investiments". Given that the disputed domain name contains the Complainant's trademark ALLIANZ in its entirety, the addition of "investiments", a misspelling of the generic word "investment", does not make the disputed domain name, as a whole, distinctive from the Complainant's trademark ALLIANZ. In addition, it has been established by numerous decisions made under the Policy that adding generic words that are related to a complainant's business is likely to lead a UDRP panel to find confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the complainant's trademark (Marriott International, Inc. v. Cafe au lait, NAF Claim No. 93670). Since investment management is one of the Complainant's core business areas, the disputed domain name is more likely to be confused with the Complainant's mark as a result of the addition of "investiments" to the Complainant's mark ALLIANZ.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark ALLIANZ. Accordingly, the Complainant has proven the first element required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts, and provides evidence to demonstrate, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and, as stated above, the Respondent did not provide any information to the Panel asserting any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name .
It is apparent from the Complaint that there is no connection between the Respondent and the Complainant or its business. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which can be taken to demonstrate a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. However, there is no evidence before the Panel that any of the situations described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply here. To the contrary, the lack of any Response leads the Panel to draw a negative inference.
Therefore, and also in light of the Panel's findings below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name . Accordingly, the Complainant has proven the second element required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent did not respond to these contentions.
According to the statement and evidence provided by the Complainant, the Respondent's website at the disputed domain name labels itself as "Allianz Investor", uses the Complainant's mark ALLIANZ and other logos repeatedly and partially copies content from the website of the Complainant's subsidiary.
The Panel notes that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name proves its intent to profit from the reputation of the Complainant and its mark as well as the Respondent's clear knowledge of the Complainant's mark and business. The Panel finds that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark to attract consumers to an apparently passing-off website offering financial and investment services is highly likely to arouse confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent's website or of the services offered on the Respondent's website.
Although at the time the Panel viewed the disputed domain name it resolved only to an error page, the Respondent, as the registrant, is capable of restoring any content displayed at the disputed domain name. Considering the Respondent's prior use of the disputed domain name in bad faith and the damage this has caused to the trust in and reputation of the Complainant's investment management services, the Panel finds that the Respondent's current passive holding of the disputed domain name poses a substantive threat to the legitimate interest of the Complainant's trademark right.
The Panel therefore finds that this is adequate to conclude that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under the Policy, paragraph 4(b). Therefore, the Complainant has successfully proven the third element required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Dr. Hong Xue
Sole Panelist
Date: May 8, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy