The Complainant is Allianz SE of Munich, Germany, internally represented.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. of Nassau, New Providence, Bahamas. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name ("the Disputed Domain Name") is registered with TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on November 12, 2015. On November 12, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On November 19, 2015, 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 Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on November 23, 2015.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 24, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 14, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on December 15, 2015.
The Center appointed Isabel Davies as the sole panelist in this matter on December 23, 2015. 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 the owner of registered trademarks for the mark ALLIANZ worldwide, first registered on September 12, 1979 and ALLIANZ REAL ESTATE, registered on January 3, 2007.
The Respondent is Whois Privacy Corp.
A second Respondent is referred to in the heading of the Complaint stating "yet unkwon (sic) to be disclosed and named in the course of the proceeding". No second Respondent has been disclosed or named.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on September 14, 2015.
When attempting to access the website at the Disputed Domain Name there is a statement saying that the account has been suspended. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i); Rules, paragraphs 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1)).
The Complainant states that it is the ultimate parent company of one of the oldest and largest international insurance and financial services groups in the world. The original company of the Allianz Group, Allianz Versicherungs-AG, was founded in 1890 in Berlin, Germany. In 1893 the first international branch, an office in London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United Kingdom") was opened. The Complainant's uninterrupted international operations following World War II date from 1959. Since its inception, the Complainant has continuously operated under the "Allianz" name, and has used the ALLIANZ mark in connection with its insurance, healthcare, financial services products and real estate business.
The Complainant states that total revenues of Allianz Group worldwide in the year 2014 added up to EUR 122.25 bn and that especially in insurance and financial services Allianz Group is one of the leading providers.
The Complainant states that it has offered quality real estate investment and asset management services under the ALLIANZ mark and trade name since at least as early as 1985. The ALLIANZ mark has been extensively marketed and advertised.
The Complainant states that, as a result of such efforts and as a result of the long use of the ALLIANZ mark by the Complainant, the ALLIANZ mark is recognized as a designation that identifies and distinguishes the quality real estate investment and asset management services offered by the Complainant. It has developed substantial goodwill in the ALLIANZ mark for its real estate related services.
The Complainant states that it owns, directly, exclusive rights in the ALLIANZ mark and derivatives thereof in jurisdictions around the world. ALLIANZ is a distinctive and well-known mark used by the Complainant in connection with its several businesses for well over 100 years. For a long time ALLIANZ has been one of the most valuable trade marks in the world. Today "Allianz" is ranked on 54th place under the best global brands by the marketing agency Interbrand.
The Complainant has the ALLIANZ mark registered worldwide and protected as a trademark in classes including insurance, financial affairs and real estate.
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. The Disputed Domain Name and the ALLIANZ marks are partly identical. Internet users will recognize the famous corporate name and trademark of the Complainant which is prominent at the beginning of the Disputed Domain Name. Further, it contends, the abbreviation "re", stands for" real estate", which is consistent with the expectations of potential clients interested in products and services of the Complainant and therefore creates confusion among Internet users.
The Complainant states that the reputation and highly distinctive character of the Complainant's mark have already been recognised by different authorities. One example is a decision by the Oberlandesgericht München (Higher Regional Court of Munich, Germany) dated November 25 1999. One reason for this favourable decision was that the court held the ALLIANZ mark to have an extraordinarily high level of awareness within the general population.
The Complainant has obtained, in a proceeding against the domain a Temporary Restraining Order at the Landgericht München I (Munich District Court I). The owner of the domain has not opposed this decision.
UDRP complaints and decisions regarding the domain names and as well as and were successful for the Complainant. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii); Rules, paragraph 3(b)(ix)(2)).
The Complainant states that, following the registration of the Disputed Domain Name on September 14, 2015, the Respondent started using it for a website offering alleged services of selling real estate via mainly Internet. The structure and the content of the homepage shows that the main purpose of the site is to offer people homes to buy or rent all over the world. The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is, in fact, used for a scheme which is not legitimate. The Complainant contends that every association with the Disputed Domain Name damages the Complainant's image.
The Complainant avers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the ALLIANZ mark or the goodwill the Complainant has developed in its mark. The Respondent has no trademark registrations for any ALLIANZ mark, has never received a license or any other form of authorization or consent from the Complainant to make use of the ALLIANZ mark and falsely claims, by using the symbol ®, to have a trademark registration for "Allianz real estate" which is apparently not the case. This, the Complainant submits, underlines the bad faith of the Respondent. Therefore, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
The Complainant states that, before any notice of this dispute, the Respondent did not use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant's prior rights would bar the Respondent from being known by it and there is no information connecting the Respondent with the Disputed Domain Name to be found on the website itself.
The Complainant also contends that the Respondent is not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name either and is using it solely for commercial purposes, therefore any possibility of a noncommercial fair use is excluded.
For all the above reasons, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitmate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith(Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(iii), 4(b); Rules, paragraph 3(b)(ix)(3)).
The Complainant contends that the Respondent intentionally attempted, by using the Disputed Domain Name, to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Disputed Domain Name.
The Complainant concludes that the ALLIANZ trademark is very well-known and real estate is one of the core elements in the relationship between the company and its clients. The Complainant submits that it cannot be reasonably argued that the Respondent could have been unaware of the trademark when registering the Disputed Domain Name and that this conclusion is supported by the fact that the Respondent's name refers to the German term "Allianz" without any other reference to Germany or the German language. Further, the Respondent uses the "®" without having a trademark registration and in relation to an alleged scheme to which they referred previously. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Policy establishes three elements, specified in paragraph 4(a) that must be established by the complainant to obtain relief. These elements are:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name;
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Each of these elements will be addressed below.
The Complainant must establish these elements even if the Respondent does not reply (see The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang,WIPO Case No. D2002-1064). However, under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel is entitled to draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from a party's failure to comply with any provision of or requirement under, the Rules, including the Respondent's failure to file a Response.
In the absence of a Response, the Panel may also accept as true the factual allegations in the Complaint (see ThyssenKrupp USA, Inc. v. Richard Giardini,WIPO Case No. D2001-1425 (citing Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson,WIPO Case No. D2000-0009)).
Paragraph 15 of the Rules provides that the Panel is to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted. As the proceeding is an administrative one, the Complainant bears the onus of proving its case on the balance of probabilities. The Complainant must therefore establish all three of the elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy on the balance of probabilities before a decision can be made to cancel or transfer the Disputed Domain Name. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant is the ultimate parent company of one of the oldest and largest international insurance and financial services groups in the world and that it has continuously operated under the "Allianz" name since 1959 and has used the ALLIANZ mark in connection with its insurance, healthcare, financial services products and real estate business with total revenues of Allianz Group worldwide in the year 2014 added up to EUR 122.25 bn.
The Panel accepts that ALLIANZ is a distinctive and widely known mark and is one of the most valuable trademarks in the world ranked in 54th place under the best global brands by Interbrand.
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has the ALLIANZ mark registered worldwide including classes for insurance, financial affairs and real estate.
The Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Name and the ALLIANZ mark are similar and partly identical and that potential clients may regard "re" as an abbreviation for "real estate" thereby creating confusion among Internet users.
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel notes that the Complainant has stated that the second Respondent is "yet unkwon" (sic) and is to be disclosed in the course of the proceeding. No such disclosure has been made. Therefore the Panel proceeds on the basis that the first Respondent is the holder of the Disputed Domain Name.
The Panel accepts that, following the registration of the Disputed Domain Name on September 14, 2015, the site was used to offer alleged services of selling real estate.
The Complainant claims that the Disputed Domain Name is, in fact, used for a scheme which is not legitimate, however, unhelpfully, provides no evidence. The Panel therefore discounts this allegation.
The Panel accepts that the Respondent has no trademark registrations for any ALLIANZ mark, has never received a license or any other form of authorization or consent from the Complainant to make use of the ALLIANZ mark and that, by using the symbol ®, in relation to "Allianz real estate" on the website, adds to the allegations of bad faith referred to in the Complaint.
The Panel accepts that, before any notice of this dispute, the Disputed Domain Name was not used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, the Respondent was not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant's prior rights would bar the Respondent from being known by it and there is no information connecting the Respondent with the Disputed Domain Name or with the Complainant to be found on the website itself.
The Panel accepts that the Respondent is not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name and is using it solely for commercial purposes.
For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel accepts that there was an intentional attempt to use the Disputed Domain Name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Disputed Domain Name.
The Panel accepts that the ALLIANZ trademark is widely known and real estate is one of the core elements of the Complainant's business.
The Panel accepts that it cannot be reasonably argued that the Respondent could have been unaware of the trademark when registering the Disputed Domain Name and that the site using the Disputed Domain Name uses the ® without the Respondent having a trademark registration.
In addition, the use of the Respondent's privacy service in respect of the Disputed Domain Name in the circumstances of the case demonstrates bad faith.
The Panel further notes that the fact that the Disputed Domain Name is currently suspended and therefore does not show any active content does not preclude a finding of bad faith (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 be transferred to the Complainant.
Isabel Davies
Sole Panelist
Date: January 6 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy