The Complainant is UNIQA Insurance Group AG, Austria, represented by Schönherr Rechtsanwälte GmbH, Austria.
The Respondent is Emir Kurtovic, Agencija Raptor, Serbia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 15, 2019. On October 15, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 16, 2019, 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. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 17, 2019, providing the additional registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant sent an email informing the Center of its intention not to amend the Complaint on October 21, 2019. 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 of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 22, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 11, 2019. The Center received two emails from the Respondent on October 22, 2019. The Center appointed Assen Alexiev as the sole panelist in this matter on November 14, 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. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is an insurance company based in Vienna, Austria, and operates under the brand UNIQA since 1998. Together with its subsidiaries it forms the UNIQA Group, which consists of 40 companies in 18 countries and serves almost 10 million customers, and is one of the leading insurance groups in Austria and Central and Eastern Europe, including in Serbia. The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations for the sign “UNIQA” (the “UNIQA trademark”): - the Austrian trademark UNIQA with registration No. 179703, registered on December 22, 1998, for services in International Class 36; and - the European Union trademark UNIQA with registration No. 001132174, registered on August 16, 2000, for services in International Class 36. The Complainant’s principal websites are located at the domain names The disputed domain name was registered on August 9, 2019. It resolves to a website that shows finance and economy related news articles. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to the UNIQA trademark, as it integrates the trademark in its entirety. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as it has no rights in the UNIQA trademark and there is no relationship between the Parties that would entitle the Respondent to use the UNIQA trademark as a domain name. The Complainant adds that the current use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent does not show that it may have legitimate interests in it. The Respondent has engaged in the practice of “link farming”, whereby it has created an ecosystem of websites linked to the website at the disputed domain name, which artificially creates traffic through backlinks and referring domain names with the aim to increase page ranking of the disputed domain name and of the other domain names of the Respondent linked to it. All hyperlinks on the website at the disputed domain name, including the hyperlinks posted in almost every comment in the embedded comment section at the disputed domain name, resolve to other websites held by the Respondent with an almost identical design. Thus, the Respondent attempts to create a false impression that there is traffic of commenting users on the website and to divert users to other websites run by the Respondent. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant and of the UNIQA trademark, since the Respondent is located in Serbia, where the Complainant is active and rated to be among the top five insurance companies. By choosing the disputed domain name, the Respondent attempts to create a misleading impression that its business is associated with the Complainant, and thus to free-ride on the fame and goodwill of the Complainant’s UNIQA trademark and obtain commercial gain from the false impression created in Internet users about a non-existent affiliation with the Complainant. The Complainant also points out that the Respondent has registered a number of other domain names incorporating third party trademarks and has used these domain names in a similar manner. The Complainant also points out that the Respondent is offering the disputed domain name for sale at a price that far exceeds the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent has not submitted a formal Response, but has made certain statements in two informal communications to the Center. The Respondent states that it chose to register the disputed domain name taking into account the trending terms from Google Trends to enlarge and improve its news network. The website at the disputed domain name contains only news that are publicly available on other websites, and each news item indicates the source, and the content is not abusive in respect of the Complainant. The Respondent adds that the disputed domain name was free for registration and its registration by the Respondent does not prevent the Complainant from registering its UNIQA trademark as a domain name, since the Complainant already has registered a domain name that reflects this trademark. According to the Respondent, it has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, because it has legally acquired it and paid for its registration. The Respondent points out that it has not hidden its identity as registrant of the disputed domain name and does not pretend to be related to the Complainant as there is a disclaimer on the associated website, that it has not directly contacted the Complainant or its competitors with an offer to sell the disputed domain name, and that there is no advertising on the website at the disputed domain name and the Respondent has no profit from its use. According to the Respondent, the prices of domain names are dictated by the market, just like natural resources. 6. Discussion and Findings Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove each of the following to justify the transfer of the disputed domain name: (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 Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. In this case, the Center has employed the required measures to achieve actual notice of the Complaint to the Respondent, in compliance with the Rules, paragraph 2(a), and the Respondent was given a fair opportunity to present its case. By the Rules, paragraph 5(c)(i), it is expected of a respondent to: “[r]espond specifically to the statements and allegations contained in the complaint and include any and all bases for the Respondent (domain name holder) to retain registration and use of the disputed domain name …” A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has provided evidence and has thus established its rights in the UNIQA trademark. The Panel notes that a common practice has emerged under the Policy to disregard in appropriate circumstances the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) section of domain names for the purposes of the comparison under the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). The Panel sees no reason not to follow the same approach here, so it will disregard the “.company” gTLD section of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this comparison. At the same time, the Panel is of the opinion that the “.company” gTLD element of the disputed domain name is relevant to the issues of rights and legitimate interests and bad faith, and will be considered accordingly, as set out below in this decision. The relevant part of the disputed domain name is therefore the element “uniqa”, which is identical to the distinctive UNIQA trademark. In view of this, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the UNIQA trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP 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. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, stating that the Respondent has no rights in the UNIQA trademark and there is no relationship between the Parties that would entitle the Respondent to use the UNIQA trademark as a domain name. The Complainant also points out that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name for “link farming” to create artificial traffic and increase the page ranking of the disputed domain name and of the other domain names of the Respondent linked to it. Thus, the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent maintains that it has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, because it was free for registration, and the Respondent legally acquired it and paid the registration fee. Notably, the Respondent states that it chose to register the disputed domain name taking into account the trending terms from Google Trends to enlarge and improve its news network. The disputed domain name is identical to the distinctive UNIQA trademark, and resolves to an active website that contains various news articles on diverse topics and features numerous links to other websites of the Respondent. As confirmed by the Respondent itself, the disputed domain name was chosen by it on the basis of trending terms from Google Trends. Google Trends is a service offered by Google that analyzes the popularity of top search queries in Google Search across various regions and languages. This means that the Respondent chose the disputed domain name because of the popularity of the term “uniqa” as a search term. This term coincides with the Complainant’s distinctive UNIQA trademark, and the Respondent does not submit that this term refers to anything else. In addition, the disputed domain name is registered in the “.company” gTLD, which is likely to create an impression in Internet users that it is related to a company by the name “Uniqa”. There is no evidence in the case file of the existence of any company by that name other than the Complainant. The Respondent also does not deny that it was aware of the Complainant and of its UNIQA trademark when it registered the disputed domain name, and confirms that its aim was to increase the popularity of its news network of websites. The Respondent however does not explain why it chose the “.company” gTLD and how it might be appropriate for an online news service covering diverse topics not related to a single company. In view of the above, it appears to the Panel as more likely that the Respondent, being aware of the attractiveness of the UNIQA trademark, has registered and used the disputed domain name in an attempt to exploit the trademark’s goodwill for commercial gain by confusing Internet users and attracting them to the Respondent’s website and to the other websites of the Respondent. In the Panel’s view, this conduct of the Respondent does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and therefore does not give rise to rights and legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists four illustrative alternative circumstances that shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith by a respondent, namely: “(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.” As discussed above, the disputed domain name is identical to the distinctive UNIQA trademark and resolves to an active website that contains many links to other websites of the Respondent. The Respondent confirms that the disputed domain name was chosen on the basis of its popularity as a search term for the purposes of increasing the popularity of the Respondent’s network of news websites. The Respondent does not deny its knowledge of the Complainant, which has a significant share of the insurance market in Serbia, where the Respondent is located. The Respondent also does not deny the Complainant’s allegations that the Respondent has registered and included in its news network a number of other domain names in the “.company” gTLD containing third party trademarks, and that it has offered the disputed domain name for sale to the general public for a substantial price. Taking the above into account, the Panel accepts as more likely than not that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and targeting the UNIQA trademark for commercial gain. It is likely that by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s UNIQA trademark, the Respondent has attempted to attract traffic to the disputed domain name and confuse Internet users that they are reaching an online location affiliated to the Complainant and then redirect them to other websites of the Respondent for increasing their popularity and search engine ranking, likely for commercial gain. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and 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 Assen Alexiev
Sole Panelist
Date: November 28, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy