The Complainants are Allianz Seguros S/A, Brazil (“First Complainant”) and Allianz SE, Germany (“Second Complainant”), represented by JM Silveira & Associados Propriedade Intelectual Ltda., Brazil.
The Respondent is Luis Daniel, Leilao, Brazil. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 3, 2020. On August 4, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On August 5, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on August 20, 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 August 21, 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 August 26, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for response was September 15, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 17, 2020. The Center appointed José Pio Tamassia Santos as the sole panelist in this matter on October 7, 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 4.1. Allianz SE, Second Complainant, is the holding company of the Allianz Group, comprising subsidiaries with over 147,000 employees and over 85 million customers in more than 70 countries, including Brazil, where its subsidiary Allianz Seguros S/A, First Complainant, among other subsidiaries thereof, is located. 4.2. The Complainants’ trademark ALLIANZ is continuously and extensively used and protected in several countries. Besides a large international trademark portfolio, the second Complainant is the owner of 25 Brazilian trademark registrations, among several other pending applications. In addition it is the owner of several applications and registrations for the trademark ALLIANZ internationally, including, among others, in Peru, Argentina, Mexico, Bolivia, Ecuador, and several other jurisdictions. 4.3. The disputed domain names 5.1. The Complainants state that the Respondent registered without authorization the disputed domain names 5.2. Furthermore, the Complainants contend that the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainants’ trademark ALLIANZ in its entirety. In the disputed domain names 5.3. Finally, the Complainants state that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and that the Respondent registered and is using one of the disputed domain names to resolve to a website containing the ALLIANZ trademark that offers auto auction services on the Internet, and the other disputed domain name to direct to an active website. The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith, for the purpose of diverting Internet users in search of the Complainants’ website, to its own commercial website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides specific remedies to trade mark owners against registrants of domain names where the owner of the mark (i.e., the complainant) proves each of the following elements: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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 was registered and is being used in bad faith. 6.2. The Complainant has the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, in respect to each element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 6.3. The Respondent, having failed to respond in the present proceeding, is in default, and in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, “the panel shall draw such inferences […] as it considers appropriate”. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar 6.4. Allianz SE, Second Complainant, is the holding company of the Allianz Group, comprising subsidiaries with over 147,000 employees and over 85 million customers in more than 70 countries, including Brazil, where its subsidiary Allianz Seguros S/A, First Complainant, among other subsidiaries thereof, is located. 6.5. The Complainants’ group companies are mainly engaged in international financial services, offering products and solutions in insurance and asset management, as well as in several other related areas. 6.6. Besides a large international trademark portfolio, the Second Complainant is the owner of the following Brazilian trademark registrations since at least October 3, 1978, among several other pending applications: Reg. No. 006.653.642 trademark ALLIANZ ULTRAMAR; Reg. No. 006.653.634 trademark ALLIANZ-ULTRAMAR; Reg. No. 819.803.782 trademark ALLIANZ; Reg. No. 819.803.766 trademark ALLIANZ; Reg. No. 820.584.401 trademark ALLIANZ; Reg. No. 821.246.593 trademark ALLIANZ; Reg. No. 821.246.623 trademark ALLIANZ; Reg. No. 821.246.607 trademark ALLIANZ GROUP; Reg. No. 828.589.160 trademark ALLIANZGI; Reg. No. 831.054.069 trademark ALLIANZ; Reg. No. 831.053.941 trademark ALLIANZ; Reg. No. 831.053.950 trademark ALLIANZ; Reg. No. 831.053.968 trademark ALLIANZ; Reg. No. 831.053.828 trademark ALLIANZ; Reg. No. 831.053.976 trademark ALLIANZ; Reg. No. 831.053.810 trademark ALLIANZ; Reg. No. 831.053.801 trademark ALLIANZ; Reg. No. 831.053.798 trademark ALLIANZ; Reg. No. 831.053.780 trademark ALLIANZ; Reg. No. 831.053.755 trademark ALLIANZ; Reg. No. 831.053.771 trademark ALLIANZ; Reg. No. 831.053.763 trademark ALLIANZ; Reg. No. 831.053.674 trademark ALLIANZ; Reg. No. 831.053.666 trademark ALLIANZ; Reg. No. 831.054.131 trademark ALLIANZ. 6.7. The Second Complainant is the owner, in addition, of several applications and registrations for the trademark ALLIANZ internationally, including, among others, in Peru, Argentina, Mexico, Bolivia, Ecuador, and several other jurisdictions. 6.8. It is clear that the disputed domain names 6.9. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the ALLIANZ trademark. 6.10. The first element of the Policy, therefore, has been met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests 6.12. The Respondent has no license or other agreement with any of the Complainants authorizing it to use the trademark ALLIANZ. 6.13. The Respondent is Luis Daniel, Leilao. “Leilao”, which means “auction” in Portuguese, does not appear to be a company or individual name. 6.14. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names or may have any rights or legitimate interests whatsoever in the disputed domain names. 6.15. One of the disputed domain names, however, lead to a website that offers auto auction services, and so it remains clear that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name with intent for commercial gain taking undue advantage of the reputation and well-known status of the Complainants names and trademarks. The other disputed domain name is inactive. 6.16. There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names or a name corresponding to the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and all facts indicate that the Respondent uses the disputed domain names to mislead consumers. 6.17. The Respondent uses one of the disputed domain names to resolve to a website that offers its services on the Internet, as it can be seen in the attached Notarial Deed, issued by a Notary Public by direct access to the website “www.leiloesallianz.com/br/” on July 21, 2020. 6.18. By redirecting Internet users to a website unrelated to the Complainants for its own commercial benefit, the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. 6.19. The following case law would be applicable to the circumstances described in this Complaint: Tomas Sziranyi v. RegisterFly.com,WIPO Case No. D2006-0320; Fifth Third Bancorp v. Secure Whois Information Service,WIPO Case No. D2006-0696; Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL,WIPO Case No. D2000-0044; Ticketmaster Corporation v. Spider Web Design, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1551. 6.20. Under these circumstances, including the Respondent’s default, the absence of any permission by the Complainants and the lack of any plausible legitimate reason for the Respondent to use the disputed domain names, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 6.21. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that “for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith”: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has 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 the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) that the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) that the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) that by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s 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 the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location. 6.22. As stated above, the Respondent is using one of the disputed domain names to resolve to a website that offers auto auction services on the Internet. The other disputed domain name is inactive. 6.23. Upon arriving at the resolving website, Internet users are likely to become confused as to the Complainants’ involvement or sponsorship of the disputed domain name and corresponding website. 6.24. The disputed domain names contain the well-known ALLIANZ trademark, and the Respondent is clearly seeking to derive profit by diverting Internet users in search of the Complainants’ website, to its own commercial website, what qualifies as an evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. 6.25. All evidences lead to the conclusion that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names that are the subject of this Complaint in bad faith, for the purpose of diverting Internet users in search of the Complainants’ website, to its own commercial website and to disrupt the Complainants’ business. 6.26. The use in bad faith becomes even more evident as the Respondent is also reproducing the Complainants’ registered logo on the website to which one of the disputed domain names resolves. 6.27. The disputed domain name 6.28. The Center’s case law has consistently found evidence of bad faith in similar situations: First Data Corporation v. FIRSTDATACLIENT.COM C/O Whois IDentify Shield/ Domain Administrator, First Data Corporation,WIPO Case No. D2006-0928; Allied Building Products Corp v. Alliedbuildingproducts.com c/o Whois Identity Shield,WIPO Case No. D2006-0833; TDS Telecommunications Corporation v. Registrant [20758] Nevis Domains and Registrant [117460] Moniker Privacy Services,WIPO Case No. D2006-1620. 6.29. As shown, the unauthorized registration and use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent, constitute bad faith registration and use. 6.30. The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been 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 names, José Pio Tamassia Santos
Sole Panelist
Date: October 25, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy