The Complainant is Allianz SE of Munich, Germany, internally represented.
The Respondent is Perfect Privacy LLC of Jacksonville, Florida, United States of America ("US") / Andrea Fernandes of Copiague, New York, US. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the Domain Name") is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 4, 2017. That day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 4, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 10, 2017, 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 April 12, 2017.
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 April 27, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 17, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 18, 2017.
The Center appointed Alan L. Limbury as the sole panelist in this matter on June 6, 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 the ultimate parent company of one of the oldest and largest insurance and financial services groups in the world. The mark ALLIANZ has been used in connection with these and other services since the establishment of the first company in the group, Allianz Versicherungs-AG, in 1890. The Complainant first registered the trademark ALLIANZ on September 12, 1979, international registration No. 447 004, and has since obtained numerous additional registrations for that mark. Subsidiaries of the Complainant have registered the domain names , , , , and . Court decisions, trademark office decisions and domain name decisions have held that the mark ALLIANZ has a very high level of recognition amongst the general public. The mark is well-known in many countries.
The Domain Name was registered on February 25, 2017. It resolves to a website prominently featuring the ALLIANZ mark with the words "Payroll and HR Solotions" [sic] and with text appearing to be provided by "Allianz" announcing: "100's of employees placed in jobs every month!" Following registration of the Domain Name, persons representing the Respondent contacted individuals with fake job offerings, seeking personal information including bank account data and mobile phone numbers. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's ALLIANZ mark. It has been used for fraudulent purposes to phish data from potentially interested individuals. The Respondent has never received a licence or consent from the Complainant to use the ALLIANZ mark; is not engaging in any of the activities set out in the Policy, paragraph 4(c) and thus has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, which was registered and is being used in bad faith. It is apparent that the Respondent is a "free-rider" and fraudster trying to take unfair advantage of the well-known trademark of the Complainant.
The Complainant seeks transfer to it of the Domain Name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to obtain transfer of the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove the following three elements: (i) the Respondent's Domain Name 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 the Domain Name; and (iii) the Respondent has registered the Domain Name and is using it in bad faith.
Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, "A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable".
A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, asserted facts may be taken as true and reasonable inferences may be drawn from the information provided by the complainant. See Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc,WIPO Case No. D2000-0441. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name comprises the Complainant's trademark ALLIANZ together with the descriptive word "payroll", which does nothing to detract from the distinctiveness of that mark, and the inconsequential generic Top Level Domain ".com", which may be disregarded: Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1525.
Accordingly the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark.
The Complainant has established this element. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that the ALLIANZ mark is distinctive and widely known around the world. The Complainant's assertions are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name on the part of the Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. See Cassava Enterprises Limited, Cassava Enterprises (Gibraltar) Limited v. Victor Chandler International Limited,WIPO Case No. D2004-0753. The Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
The Complainant has established this element. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Based on the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant and its mark when registering the Domain Name and that, by using the Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted 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 of the Respondent's website and of the employment services offered on its website. Pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, this constitutes evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
Further, the Respondent has failed to contest the Complainant's evidence that the Respondent has used the Domain Name as an email address in order to phish private data from individuals interested in (fake) job offers with the Complainant.
Accordingly the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.
The Complainant has established this element. 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury
Sole Panelist
Date: June 7, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy