The Complainant is Pet Plan Ltd, United Kingdom, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Domain Admin/Whois Privacy Corp., Bahamas, represented by Michael Freedman, United States of America (“USA”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 4, 2020. On June 4, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 5, 2020, 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 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 June 9, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for the Response was June 29, 2020. On June 17, 2020, the Respondent contacted the Center requesting a four-day extension. Pursuant to paragraph 5(b) of the Rules, the Center informed the Parties that the Response due date was extended until July 3, 2020. On June 30, 2020, the Respondent contacted the Center regarding an additional extension to the Response period of 60 days. The Complainant contacted the Center on July 2, 2020, voicing its opposition to the Respondent’s extension request. The Respondent replied to the Complainant’s objection on July 3, 2020. On July 3, 2020, the Center informed the Parties that the due date for Response was exceptionally further extended until July 9, 2020. The Response was filed with the Center on July 9, 2020. The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on July 17, 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. On July 20, 2020, the Respondent submitted a supplemental filing. The Panel takes note of the supplemental filing but does not consider it relevant to the outcome of the case, as is within the Panel's authority pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 10. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a subsidiary of Allianz Insurance plc and a leading provider of pet insurance services under or by reference to the PETPLAN trademark. The Complainant owns trademark registrations in various jurisdictions, including the USA trademark PET PLAN (Reg. No. 3161569, registered on October 26, 2006), the Canadian trademark PET PLAN (Reg. No. TMA463628, registered on September 27, 1996), the United Kingdom trademark PETPLAN (Reg. No. 2052294, registered on January 17, 1997) and the European Union trademark PETPLAN (Reg. No. 000328492, registered on October 16, 2000). The Complainant further holds the domain names The disputed domain name was registered on January 14, 2003, and resolved to websites hosting a number of pay-per-click websites or, for a short period of time, offering health insurance services. In the meantime, the website has been deactivated. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant In summary, the Complainant contends the following: The Complainant is the owner of the PET PLAN/PETPLAN trademark. The Respondent has added the generic, descriptive term “vet” (short form of “veterinarian” or “veterinary”) to the Complainant’s PET PLAN/PETPLAN trademark, thereby making the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent is not in any way affiliated with the Complainant and has not received any kind of permission to use the Complainant’s trademark. Further, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is currently using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that resolves to a “This site is under development” page and lacks content, thus lacking rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Historical screenshots of the website connected to the disputed domain name also show that the Respondent had used the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to third-party websites, some of which directly referred and related to the Complainant’s business. The Respondent received pay-per-click fees from the linked websites that were listed at the website connected to the disputed domain name. The health insurance services offered by the Respondent for a limited period of time fall under the same insurance market as the Complainant and the Complainant’s parent company, Allianz, and such use therefore cannot have conferred any rights or legitimate interests upon the Respondent since potential customers were still diverted to a website indirectly competing with the Complainant’s business. The disputed domain name is being offered for sale on Sedo, serving as further evidence of the Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests. The disputed domain name was only transitioned to the Respondent between October 27, 2010, and December 18, 2010, based on historical WhoIs and website screenshots for the disputed domain name, and even if the Respondent was the registrant of the disputed domain name in 2003, it had to have been aware of the Complainant’s domain name The PET PLAN/PETPLAN trademark is well known internationally. The Complainant has been marketing and selling its goods and services since 1976 and has registered its first trademark in 1997, which predates the Respondent’s registration or acquisition of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Respondent, who appears to be engaged in health insurance services himself, knew or should have known of the Complainant’s rights when registering or acquiring the disputed domain name. There is no plausible good faith reason or logic for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name, and the Respondent historically used the disputed domain name to resolve to pay-per-click websites that created revenue for the Respondent. The Respondent is now offering to sell the disputed domain name, which is further evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant tried to solve the matter amicably with the Respondent but was unsuccessful. It is well established that delay in bringing a complaint is generally not a defense in UDRP proceedings. In this case, the Complainant’s trademark rights predate the registration of the disputed domain name, and the Respondent has not developed sufficient identity in the disputed domain name. Thus, any delay should not be considered detrimental to the present case. B. Respondent In summary, the Respondent contends the following: The term “vet” also means “veteran” which was the intent of usage of the term “vet” in the disputed domain name as the Respondent, being an insurance agent since 2005, had clients who were veterans. The Respondent has only used the disputed domain name for talking to clients or via email with a link of the disputed domain name in order to readily and easily direct clients specifically to the Respondent’s human health insurance agent site used for quotes and health plan applications. The Complainant itself has generic descriptors as its name, namely “Pet Plan”, and generic descriptive domain names are not in themselves preclusive of the right to have these descriptors within a domain name. The Respondent had ownership of the disputed domain name at least since 2003. The Complainant refused to provide the Respondent with the complete WhoIs and domain history for the disputed domain name prior to October 2010 upon request. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name to be ready should AmeriPlan, where the Respondent was working in the early 2000s, begin to offer a non-insurance pet plan product as was rumored at the time. AmeriPlan provided a discount dental and benefits plan which, contrary to what the Complainant offers, did not constitute insurance. The Complainant had no presence in the United States and only registered its trademark in the United States years later in 2006. The Respondent was not aware of the Complainant or the existence of the Complainant’s domain names or of its business in the United Kingdom. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name to be in the business of offering non-insurance discount dental plans well before Pet Plan North America came into existence. Either way, a non-insurance pet plan, as offered before Pet Plan North America even started, would in no way compete with pet insurance, a regulated product requiring licensed agents to sell it. It is disputed that the current landing page for the disputed domain name directs to a for sale page. With a search term like “vet petplan” as two words instead of three and with use of “petplan” as a single word, the searcher is likely to alreadyknow about Pet Plan and not to be looking for a generic “plan” but one specific to the Complainant. Thus the Complainant is not harmed by the disputed domain name. Further, the Complainant has not demonstrated that it has been harmed by the disputed domain name. The Complainant is confusing customers with its own domain names. The Complainant and the Respondent are not competitors, and the Respondent has never offered or sold a pet plan, whether a non-insurance or an insurance pet plan. The Panel is requested to make a determination of “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking” and, should the Panel find in favor of the Respondent, to commit the Complainant to pay the Respondent compensation in the amount of USD 180 for the costs of 18 years of domain name registrations. 6. Discussion and Findings On the basis of the facts and evidence introduced by the parties, and with regard to paragraphs 4(a), (b), and (c) of the Policy, the Panel concludes as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate its registered rights in the PETPLAN and PET PLAN trademark in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The PETPLAN/PET PLAN trademark (the latter without spacing) is wholly reproduced in the disputed domain name A domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark for the purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of other terms in the domain name (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662). This especially includes terms like “vet” because they do not constitute distinguishing elements in the domain name. Hence, the likelihood of confusion between the Complainant’s PETPLAN/PET PLAN trademark and the disputed domain name is not dispelled by the addition of the term “vet”. In particular, the Respondent’s argument that the term “vet” was intended to mean “veteran” (instead of “veterinarian” or “veterinary”) to offer insurance solutions for veterans is not convincing and does not dispel the likelihood of confusion; in any case, that argument, such as it is, is more pertinent under the second and third elements. 1 The Complainant has thus fulfilled the requirements of 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. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor making any bona fide use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has allowed the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website featuring links to third-party websites that offered the same or similar services as the Complainant. The Panel finds it plausible that the Respondent received pay-per-click fees from the linked websites; even if it did not, it cannot disclaim responsibility for such links as the disputed domain name was under its control. The Respondent briefly used the disputed domain name to offer general insurance services which were in no way related to veterans, animal insurance, or the name of the disputed domain name Based on the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which has not been rebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Respondent alleges that it has registered the disputed domain name (at the latest) in 2003 in good faith, while the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was only transitioned to the Respondent in late 2010 and was registered and acquired in bad faith. The Panel has considered the parties’ contentions and come to the conclusion that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith because the Complainant has credibly contended that the PETPLAN/PET PLAN trademark was distinctive already in 2003 (even more so in 2010). Under the circumstances of this case, it can be inferred that the Respondent (an insurance agent by his own admission) was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The evidence submitted by the Complainant supports a finding that the Respondent was engaged in an attempt to pass himself off as the Complainant and to attract Internet users to his website for his own commercial benefit. The Respondent therefore used the disputed domain name in bad faith (see Claudie Pierlot v. Yinglong Ma,WIPO Case No. D2018-2466). D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking The Respondent accuses the Complainant of “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking”. According to the Rules, paragraph 15(e), “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking” (“RDNH”) is defined as “using the UDRP in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.” Since the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in bad faith and the Complainant’s Complaint is justified, the Panel finds no RDNH in this case. Concerning the Respondent's request for payment of USD 180, it must be noted for the sake of completeness that the UDRP system does not offer any basis for monetary compensation. Accordingly, the Complainant has 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 The Respondent’s request for determination of “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking” is denied. Tobias Zuberbühler 1 The Respondent admits to being an insurance agent only since 2005, two years after the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent further did not offer any evidence for offering services specifically to veterans in any way. Furthermore, it contradicts the Respondent’s argument of having registered the disputed domain name to be ready should AmeriPlan begin to offer a non-insurance pet plan product. The Respondent’s arguments lack credibility.
Sole Panelist
Date: July 31, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy