Complainant is Allianz SE of Munich, Germany, internally represented.
Respondent is Whoisguard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama City, Panama / Mike Diarra, Nallias SA of Bamako, Mali (“Respondent”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 14, 2017. On November 14, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 14, 2017, 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 Complainant on November 22, 2017, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 22, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 23, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 13, 2017. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 14, 2017.
The Center appointed M. Scott Donahey as the sole panelist in this matter on January 2, 2018. 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
Complainant is a worldwide provider of financial services, including banking services, based in Germany. Complainant’s predecessor was organized in Berlin in 1890, and has operated continuously under the Alliianz name. Complainant is a leading global provider of financial services, employing more than 142,000 people worldwide and has more than 85 million customers in more than 70 countries. In the calendar year 2016, Complainant had total revenues of EUR 110.5 billion. In Interbrand’s Best Global Brands rankings for 2016, Complainant’s “Allianz” brand ranked No. 51 in the world. Complaint, Annex H.
Complainant has numerous registered trademarks consisting of or including the service mark ALLIANZ, which registrations date from as early as 1979 internationally and in Germany. Complaint, Annex I.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 11, 2016. Complaint, Annex A. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a website on which it features the name Banque-Allianz prominently and purports to be the website of an affiliate of Complainant based in Mali. As a result, Complainant’s subsidiary in Mali has filed a legal complaint in the courts of Mali. Complaint, Annex P. Respondent’s website offers banking services under the guise of Complainant. Complaint, Annexes E and J.
Complainant received a letter from a third-party trader asking whether Complainant was indeed affiliated with the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Complaint, Annex B. The letter included copies of a Bank Capability Letter and a Bank Comfort letter which appeared to have been drafted by Complainant’s affiliate based in Mali. Complaint, Annexes C and D. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Allianz mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute:
“A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of the following:
1) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and,
2) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
3) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s registered service mark ALLIANZ together with an hyphen and the French word “banque,” which is descriptive of some of the financial services offered by Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered service mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1.
In the present case Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and Respondent has failed to assert any such rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web site which indicates that it is affiliated with Complainant and at which it offers banking services similar those offered by Complainant. Potential customers of Complainant have used the web site and have received letters from Respondent which appear to have been prepared by affiliates of Complainant. At least one user has communicated with Complainant, asking whether Complainant is affiliated with the web site and whether the letters the user received were prepared by Complainant’s affiliate and were authentic. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been 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 Complainant.
Scott Donahey
Sole Panelist
Date: January 3, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy