The Complainant is UNIQA Insurance Group AG of Vienna, Austria, represented by Schönherr, Austria.
The Respondent is David Papp, Enterprise-Data Kft. of Gyor, Hungary. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on December 15, 2016. On December 15, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, 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 December 19, 2016, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amended Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 20, 2016.
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 December 21, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 10, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on January 11, 2017.
The Center appointed Beatrice Onica Jarka as the sole panelist in this matter on January 19, 2017. 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 public stock listed major insurance company based in Vienna, Austria, which has operated under the brand UNIQA since 1998 and has been established since 1811. The Complainant is a member of the UNIQA Group, which is a leading insurance group in its core markets of Austria and Central and Eastern Europe serving millions customers.
The Complainant is the owner of a broad array of trademarks, which are protected also in class 36 for "Insurance services", including:
- UNIQA (Austrian Trademark Registration No. 179703, with the registration date December 22, 1998, and priority date October 13, 1998);
- UNIQA (European Union Trademark Registration No. 1132174, with the registration date August 16, 2000, and priority date October 13, 1998).
The Respondent is an individual from an organization named Enterprise-Data Kft, located in Gyor, Hungary. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 8, 2016, under a Whoisguard privacy protection service. The disputed domain name resolves to a web page displaying pay-per-click ("PPC") links. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
- with a brand awareness of almost 100% (aided) and 75% (unaided) in 2014 in Austria, UNIQA is amongst the strongest insurance brands in Austria. Because of the Complainant's comprehensive activities and strong market position, the Complainant's UNIQA trademarks are well known at least in Austria, but also in the Central and Eastern European region.
- the disputed domain name is similar with its trademark UNIQA, as it incorporates its famous trademark UNIQA in its entirety with an addition of a generic term "website". The term "website" simply indicates that the disputed domain name leads to the website of the UNIQA Insurance Group AG.
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate Interests in respect of the disputed domain name, as the Complainant is not aware of any own rights of the Respondent in the sign UNIQA The Complainant is not aware to have authorized the Respondent to use the UNIQA sign or of any relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent which would otherwise entitle the Respondent to use the UNIQA mark as a domain name. Also the current use of the disputed domain name (a parking page) by the Respondent does not imply potential legitimate interests of the Respondent.
- the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, as it resolves to a parking page. Moreover, the Respondent is located in Hungary close to the Austrian border, and must have been aware of UNIQA being one of the strongest insurance brands in Austria and being well‑positioned in the Central and Eastern European markets, including Hungary. As a result, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily to attract the attention of users with the famous trademark of the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Policy requires that the Complainant show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Based on the contentions of the Complainant and the evidence presented in support of these contentions, this Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of a broad array of trademark registrations protected in class 36 for insurance services (i.e., UNIQA, a well-known trademark).
This Panel also agrees with the Complainant that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark UNIQA, as the disputed domain name fully incorporates the registered trademark UNIQA, with an addition of a non-distinctive element "website". The fact that the disputed domain name includes the non-distinctive element "website" does not affect the confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy. It is a well-established principle that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark is found to be confusingly similar for purposes of the Policy, despite the fact that the disputed domain name may also contain other terms.
For all the reasons above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark and that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under this element of the Policy, the Complainant has to make at least a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent, as indicated in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), paragraph 2.1. This Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and such showing has not been rebutted by the Respondent.
The Panel accepts the Complainant's assertions that it is not aware of any own rights of the Respondent in the sign UNIQA, has not authorized the Respondent to use the UNIQA sign, and has no relationship with the Respondent which would otherwise entitle the Respondent to use the UNIQA mark as a domain name.
As regards the current use of the disputed domain name as a parking page with PPC links, the Panel's position is in line with the practice indicated in the WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.6, which states that while use of a domain name to post parking and landing pages or PPC links may be permissible in some circumstances, it would not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests arising from a "bona fide offering of goods or services" or from "legitimate noncommercial or fair use" of the domain name, especially where resulting in a connection to goods or services competitive with those of the rights holder, and considers that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests derived from such use.
For all the reasons above, this Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The contentions of the Complainant in proving this element are grounded on the well-known character of its trademarks, the use of the disputed domain name as a parking page with PPC links to goods or services competitive with those of the Complainant, and the Respondent's use of a privacy shield in registering the disputed domain name.
Given the well-known nature of the Complainant's trademark, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent should very well have been aware at the moment of registration of the disputed domain name the existence of the UNIQA trademarks and likely intended to use it in order to attract Internet users to the disputed domain name. In the circumstances, the Respondent's use of a privacy shield in registering the disputed domain name is further suggestive of bad faith. Finally, in light of the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant's trademark in its entirety and resolves to a parking page displaying PPC links, this Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy in respect of the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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.
Beatrice Onica Jarka
Sole Panelist
Date: February 2, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy