The Complainants are Swiss Life AG (“Complainant 1”) and Swiss Life Intellectual Property Management AG (“Complainant 2”, together “Complainants”), both Switzerland, represented by FMP Fuhrer Marbach & Partners, Switzerland.
The Respondent is Shaban Rusiti, Shaban, Switzerland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 3, 2020. On April 3, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 16, 2020, 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 Complainants on April 27, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amendment to the Complaint on April 27, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 April 28, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for the Response was May 18, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 20, 2020. On April 30, 2020, the Complainants submitted an unsolicited supplemental filing. The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on May 25, 2020. 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 SWISS LIFE stands for Switzerland’s largest life insurance company and one of Europe’s leading comprehensive life insurance, pensions and financial solutions providers. The SWISS LIFE brand is the basis of the Complainants’ substantial trade name, domain name and trademark portfolio. The Complainants have established various websites accessible by domain names featuring the SWISS LIFE trademark. Complainant 2 owns multiple trademark registrations incorporating the SWISS LIFE trademark, including the Swiss trademarks Reg. No. 491528 registered on November 15, 2001 and Reg. No. 436709 registered on February 12, 1997. The disputed domain name was registered on February 26, 2019 and is currently resolving to a landing page with the following text: “SORRY! If you are the owner of this website, please contact your hosting provider: webmaster@swisslife.fun”. The Complainants have shown that the Respondent previously used the disputed domain name as a parked domain to monetize type-in traffic. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants The Complainants allege that they have satisfied all elements of the Policy, paragraph 4. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Procedural Issues: Unsolicited Supplemental Filing The Complainants submitted an unsolicited supplemental filing in these proceedings on April 30, 2020. The Rules make no express provision for supplemental filings by either party, except in response to a deficiency notification or if requested by the Center or the Panel. Generally, UDRP panels will only accept supplemental filings in “exceptional” circumstances where such a filing clearly shows its relevance to the case and why it was unable to provide the information contained therein in the original complaint or response (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.6). The Complainants’ supplemental filing provides further argumentation in relation to the Respondent’s bad faith. Nothing in the submissions would have been unavailable to the Complainants at the time they filed the Complaint or the amendment to the Complaint. In these circumstances, the Panel declines to accept the supplemental filing. 6.2. Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainants have shown that they have rights in the SWISS LIFE trademark. The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainants’ SWISS LIFE trademark in its entirety. It has become a consensus view among UDRP panels that the applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name is a standard registration requirement and as such may be disregarded when assessing confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy. This practice also applies with regard to new TLDs such as “.fun” (see WIPO Overview 3.0), sections 1.11.1 and 1.11.2). Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainants’ SWISS LIFE trademark. The Complainants have thus satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the nature of the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied affiliation (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1). Based on the Complainants’ credible contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainants, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, have fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under the circumstances of this case, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainants’ trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s efforts to masquerade as the Complainants in providing the visitors of the website of the disputed domain with insurance specific advertisement listing and links clearly demonstrates bad faith in the sense of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, i.e. an attempt by the Respondent to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his website. The Panel thus finds that the Complainants have also fulfilled 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 Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: June 5, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy