The Complainant is Allianz SE, Germany, internally represented.
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Charles Okocha, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 8, 2020. On December 8, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 8, 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 Complainant on December 9, 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 December 14, 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 December 29, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 18, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 19, 2021. The Center appointed Alistair Payne as the sole panelist in this matter on February 3, 2021. 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 international insurance and financial services group serving approximately 100 million customers in 70 countries and with total revenues for 2019 amounting to approximately EUR 142 billion. The Complainant trades under the ALLIANZ trade mark and owns numerous registrations worldwide including German trade mark registration number 987481 registered on July 11, 1979 for ALLIANZ and European Trade Mark number 000013656 registered on July 22, 2002 for ALLIANZ. The Complainant, or members of its affiliate group, also owns a portfolio of domain names containing its ALLIANZ mark both in generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) name spaces and in country code spaces, including The disputed domain name was registered on November 21, 2020, and diverts to a website promoting a business under the name “Allianz Invest Bank” that purports to offer online personal and business banking services and to be “The world’s largest provider dedicated to consulting and finance solutions”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits that its ALLIANZ trade mark is wholly contained in the disputed domain name and is therefore confusingly similar to it. It notes that the Respondent holds no trade mark registrations for an ALLIANZ mark and has never been licensed or authorised by the Complainant to use its trade mark, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that it is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use purposes. The Complainant says that the use of the disputed domain name for financial services implies that the Respondent belongs to the Complainant’s group of companies and deceives Internet users into thinking that it is part of that group when this is not the case. This says the Complainant, is precisely how the Respondent hopes to exploit and trade upon the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant’s mark in connection with insurance and financial services and submits that it amounts to free-riding and fraud and does not correspond to any circumstances as set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy that would amount to evidence of it having rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant this is a case under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy in which the Respondent has intentionally attempted to use the disputed domain name to confuse Internet users into revealing private information and data on the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the disputed domain name. Further says the Complainant, considering that its ALLIANZ mark is so well known globally, especially in relation to insurance and financial affairs, the Respondent must have been aware of its trade mark when it registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant notes further that the fact that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves refers to the Respondent’s business under a name that includes the ALLIANZ mark but without any other reference to the German word “allianz”, or the German language, is further indicative that the Respondent sought to target the Complainant and to capitalize upon its reputation. The Complainant also notes that the Respondent’s bad faith is further evidenced by its use of the email address “[…]@myallianzinvestbnk.com” in relation to loan and mortgage services. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns various trade mark registrations globally for its ALLIANZ mark including German trade mark registration 987481 registered on July 11, 1979 for ALLIANZ and European Union Trade Mark 000013656 registered on July 22, 2002 for ALLIANZ. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the ALLIANZ mark and is therefore confusingly similar to it. The disputed domain name also includes “my” before the mark and “investbk” after the mark but before the gTLD “.com” and is according to the Panel clearly intended to mean “my allianz investment bank”. The Panel finds that this does not detract from a finding of confusing similarity and therefore that the Complaint succeeds under the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent holds no trade mark registrations for the ALLIANZ mark and has never been licensed or authorised by the Complainant to use its trade mark, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that it is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use purposes. It has further submitted that the use of the disputed domain name for financial services implies that the Respondent belongs to the Complainant’s group of companies and deceives Internet users into thinking that it is part of that group when this is not the case. The Complainant says that this is precisely how the Respondent hopes to exploit and trade upon the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant’s mark in connection with insurance and financial services and amounts to free riding on its mark and business and to fraud. The Panel also notes that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is branded “Allianz Invest Bank” which is entirely consistent with the Complainant’s submission that the Respondent is attempting to free ride upon the goodwill attaching to its ALLIANZ trade mark. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In circumstances that the Respondent has failed to rebut this case and also for the reasons set out under Part C below, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complaint also succeeds under this element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name was registered on November 21, 2020, i.e. many years after the Complainant Group’s trade mark registrations. It is apparent that the Complainant’s insurance and financial services business is global and extremely substantial and has developed a very significant reputation worldwide. Considering that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves uses the ALLIANZ mark and purports to promote the “ Allianz Invest Bank”, such use is very unlikely to be coincidental and it is most likely that the Respondent was very well aware of the Complainant’s mark when it registered the disputed domain name. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy the use of the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a 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 a website or location or of a product or service on the website amounts to evidence of registration and use in bad faith. This is precisely what the Respondent has sought to do in this case by using the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant’s very well reputed ALLIANZ mark to divert Internet users to a website promoting financial and banking services under the name “Allianz Invest Bank” in circumstances that Internet users would most likely think that it has some association or affiliation with the Complainant’s substantial global business. The Respondent’s promotion from the website of the email address “[…]@myallianzinvestbnk.com” in relation to queries for loan and mortgage services only serves to reinforce the degree of potential consumer confusion. The Respondent’s use of a privacy service in all of these circumstances further reinforces the Panel’s view that the Respondent has acted in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has both registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and the Complaint also succeeds under this element 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 Alistair Payne
Sole Panelist
Date: February 15, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy