The Complainant is Allianz SE of Munich, Germany, represented by Tobias Unterguggenberger, Germany.
The Respondent is ZhangXin of Shenyang, Liaoning, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 22, 2017. On September 22, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 25, 2017, 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. On September 29, 2017, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding on October 2, 2017. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.
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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 5, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 25, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 26, 2017.
The Center appointed Jonathan Agmon as the sole panelist in this matter on November 1, 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, Allianz SE (formerly Allianz Versicherungs-AG), is a German multinational company that provides insurance and financial services. The Complainant was founded in 1890 in Berlin, Germany and has been operating under the ALLIANZ mark ever since. The Complainant employs some 142,500 employees worldwide, serves approximately 85 million customers in over 70 countries. In 2016, the Complainant's revenues amounted to EUR 122.40 Billion.
The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the mark ALLIANZ. For example: German Registration No. 987481, with the registration date of July 11, 1979; European Union Trademark ("EUTM") Registration No. 000013656, with the registration date of July 22, 2002; and more. See Complaint Annex H.
The Complainant is also the owner of several domain names comprising its ALLIANZ trademarks, for example: , , and more.
The disputed domain name was registered on November 15, 2016.
The disputed domain name currently directs to a website that indicates that the disputed domain name is for sale. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's famous and registered mark ALLIANZ because it contains the Complainant's mark in its entirety.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent started using the disputed domain name long after the Complainant began using its mark and did so due to the international reputation it has acquired in the mark ALLIANZ.
The Complainant further argues that the Respondent is not known under the disputed domain name and is not authorized by the Complainant to use the disputed domain name, which is associated with the Complainant. It is further alleged that the Respondent has never used and does not intend to use the mark ALLIANZ in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or in any other legitimate commercial or noncommercial way. Therefore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name has registered and used it in bad faith. it is further alleged that the Respondent is a professional domain name dealer and is trying to turn a profit by registering domain names which are connected to well-known trademarks.
For all of the above reasons, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Language of the Proceeding
Paragraph 11 of the Rules provides that:
"(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding."
The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese.
The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English.
The Respondent did not respond.
The Panel cites the following with approval:
"Thus, the general rule is that the parties may agree on the language of the administrative proceeding. In the absence of this agreement, the language of the Registration Agreement shall dictate the language of the proceeding. However, the Panel has the discretion to decide otherwise having regard to the circumstances of the case. The Panel's discretion must be exercised judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties taking into consideration matters such as command of the language, time and costs. It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her abilities to articulate the arguments for the case." (Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl,WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004).
The Panel finds that in the present case, the following should be taken into consideration upon deciding on the language of the proceeding:
(i) The disputed domain name consists of Latin letters, rather than Chinese characters;
(ii) The Respondent used the English language in the website under the disputed domain name;
(iii) The Complainant may be unduly disadvantaged by having to conduct the proceeding in the Chinese language;
(iii) The Respondent did not object to the Complainant's request that English be the language of the proceeding.
Upon considering the above, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding. 6.2. Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the ALLIANZ mark. For example: German Registration No. 987481, with the registration date of July 11, 1979; EUTM Registration No. 000013656, with the registration date of July 22, 2002; and more. See Complaint Annex H.
The disputed domain name integrates the Complainant's ALLIANZ trademark in its entirety. The disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark differ in the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".online" to the disputed domain name. This addition does not avoid confusing similarity (see F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, and Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003). The gTLD ".online" iswithout significance in the present case since the use of a TLD is technically required to operate a domain name.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Once the Complainant establishes a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 2.1.
In the present case, the Complainant has demonstrated prima facie that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and the Respondent has failed to assert any such rights or legitimate interests.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case in this regard, inter alia, due to the fact that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant's trademarks or a variation thereof and the evidence presented indicates that the Respondent is not engaged in a bona fide offering of goods or services and holds no trademark registration for any ALLIANZ mark.
The Respondent has not submitted any Response to the Complaint and did not provide any explanation or evidence to show any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name sufficient to rebut the Complainant's prima facie case.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant must show that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii)). Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides circumstances that may evidence bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
The Complainant has submitted evidence, which shows that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name long after the Complainant registered its trademark. According to the evidence filed by the Complainant, the Complainant has owned a registration for the ALLIANZ trademark since at least July 11, 1979, while the Respondent owned the disputed domain name since November 15, 2016. In view of the evidence filed by the Complainant, and the widespread use of the ALLIANZ trademarks, it is suggestive of the Respondent's bad faith in these particular circumstances that the trademark, owned by the Complainant, was registered long before the registration of the disputed domain name (Sanofi-Aventis v. Abigail Wallace,WIPO Case No. D2009-0735).
Furthermore, the disputed domain name includes the Complainant's trademark in its entirety. Previous UDRP panels ruled that "a likelihood of confusion is presumed, and such confusion will inevitably result in the diversion of Internet traffic from the Complainant's site to the Respondent's site" (see E, Inc v. Triple E Holdings Limited,WIPO Case No. D2006-1095). To this end, prior UDRP panels have established that attracting Internet traffic by using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark may be evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP.
The Respondent has been offering the disputed domain for sale while presenting it as a domain name to market the Complainant's services, i.e., insurance. The Respondent's behavior is clear evidence that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant's trademark, and indicates that the Respondent's primary intent with respect to the disputed domain name is to trade off the value of these. Such actions by the Respondent constitute clear indications of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. See Herbalife International, Inc. v. Surinder S. Farmaha,WIPO Case No. D2005-0765, stating that "the registration of a domain name with the knowledge of the Complainant's trademark registration amounts to bad faith". The Panel also finds that the Respondent's attempt to sell the disputed domain name for commercial gain with the intent to creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks falls under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Based on the evidence presented to the Panel, including the registration of the disputed domain name long after the registration of the Complainant's marks, the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's mark and the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name, the Panel draws the inference that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Accordingly, having regard to the circumstances of this particular case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met its burden under 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.
Jonathan Agmon
Sole Panelist
Date: November 11, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy