The Complainant is Allianz SE, Germany, internally represented.
The Respondent is Domain Proxy Service, Domain Proxy Service. Namesco Limited, United Kingdom / Paul Chanler, United Kingdom. 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 14, 2020. On October 14, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 16, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing the 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 October 16, 2020 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 October 19, 2020. 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 November 2, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 22, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center sent notification of the Respondent’s default on November 23, 2020. The Center appointed Petra Pecar as the sole panelist in this matter on November 30, 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 The Complainant is Allianz SE, a company registered and organized in accordance with the laws of Germany and the European Union. Allianz SE is the parent company of the Allianz Group, and the owner of the ALLIANZ trademarks used worldwide in connection with financial and insurance services. The Allianz Group is one of the largest providers of financial services worldwide. Listed below are some of the ALLIANZ marks registered and protected around the world: ALLIANZ, International Registration number 447004, registered on September 12, 1979; The Complainant and its affiliates from Allianz Group have also registered a number of domain names, some of which include the following: The Respondent is an individual located in the United Kingdom. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 28, 2020. According to the Complainant, at the time of the submission of the Complaint, the disputed domain name was used for configuration of email servers and consequently sending of phishing emails to Internet user for purposes of eliciting their personal data, after which they were redirected to the official website of Allianz through the disputed domain name thereby making it seem that users were having legitimate conversations with a representative from the Complainant’s company. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant is the ultimate parent company of one of the oldest and largest international insurance and financial services Groups in the world, and the owner of numerous ALLIANZ trademarks registered in countries all over the world. In addition, the Complainant is the owner of many domain names containing the term “Allianz”. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights as it directly incorporates its registered trademarks ALLIANZ. As the Complainant considers its ALLIANZ trademarks to be well-known throughout the world in connection with insurance and financial services, it would be inconceivable that the Respondent did not have knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. In support of the argument that its trademarks are well-known, the Complainant refers to a verdict by the Oberlandesgericht Miinchen (Higher Regional Court of Munich) dated November 25, 1999 in which the court found that the Allianz trademark has an extraordinarily high level of recognition in the general public and therefore, the opponent, hip-hop Group “Die Allianz”, was infringing on the Complainant’s rights. In further support of this argument, the Complaint refers to the ruling by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market in an opposition against the contested application “Alliance Capital” dated December 09, 2003, in which it came to the same conclusion regarding the reputation of the ALLIANZ trademark. The Complaint has instituted a number of actions against confusingly similar domain names containing the word “Allianz” which were all decided in the Complainant’s favor. In this regard, the Complainant quotes, inter alia, the decision Allianz Sigorta A.S., Allianz Hayat ve Emeklilik A.S. v. Selcuk Yildiz,WIPO Case No. D2015-1762, in which the panel found that the respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademarks when it registered the domain name, particularly since the Complainant’s trademark ALLIANZ has become recognized worldwide, including in Turkey. In Allianz SE, v. Well Domains are either owned by us or Client Managed, WIPO Case No. D2008-0535, the disputed domain name included the Complainant’s mark ALLIANZ and the generic term “finance’’, which obviously denotes the services for which the Complainant is well-known. Since the respondent used the disputed domain name for a website with affiliate links to finance-related websites, the panel found that the disputed domain name was used in bad faith. Finally, the Complainant referred to the decision by Landgericht Mtinchen (Munich District Court), dated February 5,, 2003, where a restraining order was successfully issued against the use of the domain name The Complainant further argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since the Respondent does not hold a registration of the trademark ALLIANZ nor did he receive a license or consent for the use of any ALLIANZ trademarks registered in the name of the Complainant. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name was registered only for the purpose of unfairly attracting the Complainant’s consumers as it is clearly misleadingly diverting consumers into thinking that they are revealing their data to a representative of the Complainant. The Complainant also argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent clearly sought to register the disputed domain name because of its association with the Complainant and hoped to capitalize on the Complainant’s reputation. According to the Complainant, the ALLIANZ trademark has a well-known reputation in countries all over the world with regards to insurance and financial services. Additionally, the Complainant is one of the leading companies worldwide in terms of providing insurance and financial services. It is very unlikely that these facts were unknown to the Respondent when registering the disputed domain name which combines the well-known trademark and Top-Level Domain (“TLD”). In light of the nature of the disputed domain name itself, i.e., the combination of the Complainant’s trademark together with the ending portion “pi”, the disputed domain name carries with it a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. According to the Complainant, the Respondent acted in bad faith when, within the registration of the disputed domain name, he used the email address “[…]@allianzpi.com” in order to phish private data from individuals interested in financial services and then redirected them through the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s official website, thereby making it seem as though users were having legitimate conversations with a representative from the Complainant’s company. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must demonstrate that: i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and 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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. A trademark registration provides a clear indication that the rights in the trademark belong to the Complainant (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.2.1). In the case at hand, the Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the trademark ALLIANZ on the basis of its multiple trademark registrations in various jurisdictions around the world. All of these ALLIANZ trademarks were duly registered long before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 28, 2020. Previous panels have found the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark to be well-known (see in particular Allianz Sigorta A.S., Allianz Hayat ve Emeklilik A.S. v. Selcuk Yildiz,WIPO Case No. D2015-1762, Allianz SE v. Well Domains are either owned by us or Client Managed WIPO Case No. D2008-0535.) More importantly, the Complainant has provided solid evidence in respect to the recognition of reputation of the ALLIANZ trademark throughout the world, and this Panel, therefore, holds that indeed the ALLIANZ trademark should be observed as a well-known trademark. The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the letters “pi” and the gTLD “.com”. Because the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the inclusion of the additional term “pi” does not detract from its confusing similarity. As noted in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8: “Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.” Similarly, the gTLD “.com” does not generally preclude a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks in accordance with the well-established practice of previous decisions. Therefore, the Panel holds that the combination of the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark together with the letters “pi” and the gTLD “.com” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s ALLIANZ mark, which remains clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights, meaning that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In accordance with paragraph 4 (a) (ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must be able to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Since it can sometimes be difficult to provide negative evidence, it is generally accepted that the complainant must establish a prima facie case that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The burden is then on the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence to rebut that presumption and, if this is not successful, the complainant is presumed to have met the requirements of paragraph 4 (a) (ii) of the Policy. In the present case, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the ALLIANZ mark or the goodwill developed in respect thereof. On the contrary, the Respondent holds no trademark registrations for any ALLIANZ mark and has never received a license or any other form of authorization or consent from the Complainant to make use of the ALLIANZ mark. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, it seems that the disputed domain name was used in phishing emails sent to Internet users for purposes of eliciting their personal data, after which they were redirected to the official website of the Complainant through the disputed domain name, thereby making it seem as though they were communicating with a representative from the Complainant’s company. In accordance with section 2.13 of WIPO Overview 3.0, use of a disputed domain name for illegal activity (such as phishing) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. The Respondent, not having responded to the Complaint, has provided no evidence to demonstrate a right or at least a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. In light of the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Furthermore, the Panel finds that the Respondent, being a natural person by the name of Paul Chanler, does not appear to be commonly known by the disputed domain name or to have any particular rights in such domain name or any clear connection with the Complainant. Moreover, the use of the domain name cannot be viewed as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as it was clearly intended to mislead consumers in order to obtain their personal data through a well-established phishing scheme. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy stipulates that any of the following circumstances, inter alia, shall be considered as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or 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 the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) circumstances indicating that the respondent 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 the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) circumstances indicating that the respondent is using the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its 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 its website or location. The above list of examples of bad faith registration and use of domain names is not meant to be exhaustive and other circumstances indicating bad faith may be taken into account by panels (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003). The Panel also notes that section 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 stipulates that bad faith is present when by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s marks and obtain business interest on the basis of the complainant’s goodwill. In the present case, due to the worldwide reputation of the Complainant and its ALLIANZ trademark and the fact that the Complainant’s business is present in the country where the Respondent resides, the Panel finds that it is highly unlikely that these facts were unknown to the Respondent at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademarks and, as such, it presents a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. The Panel notes that the Complainant’s affiliate Allianz Global Investors from United States of America is the registrant of the domain name The fact that the Respondent appears to have made use of the Complainant’s well-known trademark with the intention of creating a false affiliation or connection with the Complainant is further evidenced by the Respondent’s use of the ALLIANZ trademark in the emails used to phish private data from individuals interested in financial services. The email address “[…]@allianzpi.com” that was used for such scheme as well as the email signature of such emails sent fromthat address clearly indicate that the Respondent was well-aware of the Complainant and its business and that the purpose of registration of the disputed domain name was impersonation of the Complainant in order to obtain financial gain. Regarding the use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Panel finds that use for alleged purposes of conducting a phishing scheme cannot be in any event observed as use of the disputed domain name in good faith. On the contrary, such behavior is manifestly considered evidence of bad faith (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4). In light of the above, the Panel finds that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or an online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of the products on its website. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, this circumstance shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that consequently the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under 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 Petra Pecar
ALLIANZ, International Registration number 714618, registered on May 4, 1999;
ALLIANZ, Germany, Registration number 987481, registered on July 11, 1979;
ALLIANZ Germany, Registration number 39927827 registered on July 16, 1999;
ALLIANZ, European Union, Registration number 000013656, registered on July 22, 2002.
Sole Panelist
Date: December 18, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy