The Complainant is Allianz SE, Germany, represented internally.
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, Panama / Kaiser Sandra, Finland. 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 August 14, 2019. On August 14, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 15, 2019, 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 August 16, 2019, 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 August 16, 2019.
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 August 20, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 9, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 10, 2019.
The Center appointed Takács Zoltán as the sole panelist in this matter on September 12, 2019. 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.
The language of this administrative proceeding is English, that being the language of the registration agreement. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is the parent company of one of the oldest and largest international insurance and financial services groups in the world.
The first company of today’s Allianz Group, Allianz Versicherungs- AG was founded in 1890.
Nowadays Allianz Group employs approximately 142,000 people worldwide and serves approximately 92 million customers in more than 70 countries.
The Complainant has a global portfolio of trademarks consisting of or comprising the Allianz trademark, including:
- International Trademark Registration (“IR”) No. 447004 for the word mark ALLIANZ, registered on September 12, 1979 for services of class 36 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Good and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks (“The Nice Classification”), and
- European Union Trade Mark Registration (“EUTM”) No. 000013656 for the word mark ALLIANZ registered on July 22, 2002 for goods and services of classes 16, 35 and 36 of the Nice Classification.
Among others Allianz Group owns the domain name registered on May 21, 1997.
The disputed domain name was created on July 3, 2019 and has been used for a website offering various transports, logistics and payment services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, is confusingly similar to its ALLIANZ trademark since the disputed domain name fully incorporates the ALLIANZ trademark.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and is unable to rely on any of the circumstances set out in paragraphs 4(c)(i), (ii) or (iii) of the Policy.
The Complainant claims that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to intentionally and unlawfully attract Internet users to its “www.” website name by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s famous ALLIANZ trademark.
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires that the Panel’s decision be made “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”.
It has been a consensus view in UDRP decisions that a respondent’s default (i.e., failure to submit a response) would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true. See section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
A complainant must evidence each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to succeed on the complaint, namely that;
(i) the disputed 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 respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.
It has been a consensus view among UDRP panels that if the complainant owns a trademark, then it generally satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights.
The Complainant produced suitable evidence of having rights in the ALLIANZ trademark.
For the purpose of this proceeding, the Panel establishes that the IR No. 447004 and EUTM No. 000013656 satisfy the requirement of having trademark rights for the purpose of the Policy.
Having determined the presence of the Complainant’s trademark rights in the ALLIANZ mark, the Panel next assesses whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to ALLIANZ trademark.
According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. This test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the disputed domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name.
According to section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.
According to section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is generally disregarded under the first element confusingly similar test.
The disputed domain name consists of the letters “r” and “t”, symbol dash (“-“), the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark, another symbol dash (“-“), and the phrase “partener”.
The Complainant’s famous ALLIANZ trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name and in view of the Panel the other elements in the disputed domain name do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark. The fact of confusing similarity stems from the evident use of the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark in the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in a domain name by showing any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation:
(i) its use of, or demonstrable preparation to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services;
(ii) it has been commonly known by the domain name;
(iii) it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
In the present case, the Complainant has submitted sufficient and uncontested evidence that it holds well-established rights in the ALLIANZ trademark.
The Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks in any way, and its prior rights in its trademarks long precede the date of registration of the disputed domain name.
According to section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, 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 the 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.
The Respondent defaulted and failed to respond, and by doing so failed to offer the Panel any type of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or otherwise counter the Complainant’s prima facie case.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists a number of factors which, if found by the panel to be present, shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. This non-exclusive list includes:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.”
According to section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can itself create a presumption of bad faith.
The ALLIANZ trademark of the Complainant has a strong reputation and due to its substantial and continued global use is widely known.
The Respondent’s website under the disputed domain name prominently featured the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark as well its logo. This demonstrates that the Respondent not only knew of the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark at the time of registration but clearly has registered and used the disputed domain name with intent to deceive Internet users into believing that the website is in some way associated with the Complainant.
Employing the phrase “partener” in the disputed domain name (phrase which has no meaning in English, but can certainly be read and understood as “partner”) is a further signal of the Respondent’s intent to confuse Internet users seeking or expecting the Complainant.
Further to the Respondent’s lack of any rights to or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and absence of any conceivable good faith use of the disputed domain name, the above discussed facts and circumstances convince the Panel that 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, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of such site or the services advertised on such site, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied. 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.
Takács Zoltán
Sole Panelist
Date: September 26, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy