The Complainant is Allianz SE, Germany, represented internally.
The Respondent is Christopher Macaulay, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 26, 2021. On February 26, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 27, 2021, 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 March 4, 2021 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 March 5, 2021. 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 March 8, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 28, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 6, 2021. The Center appointed Mihaela Maravela as the sole panelist in this matter on April 13, 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 the ultimate parent company of one of the oldest and largest international insurance and financial services groups in the world. The first company of today’s Allianz Group, Allianz Versicherungs - AG, was founded in 1890 in Berlin, Germany. Since its inception, Allianz Group has continuously operated under the “Allianz” name, and has used the ALLIANZ trademark in connection with its insurance, healthcare, and financial services products. With approximately 150,000 employees worldwide, the Allianz Group serves approximately 100 million customers in more than 70 countries. Allianz is one of the world’s largest asset managers, with third party assets of EUR 1,712 billion under management at the end of the year 2020. The Complainant is the exclusive owner of a number of registered trademarks consisting of or including the words “allianz”, including the International trademark registration No. 447004 for ALLIANZ, registered on September 12, 1979, and the International trademark registration No. 713841 for ALLIANZ stylized, registered on May 3, 1999. The Complainant has also registered numerous domain names containing the ALLIANZ word trademark, including The disputed domain name was registered on February 14, 2021. The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website. However, the Complainant provided evidenced that the disputed domain name resolved to a website appearing to offer financial services and displaying the Complainant’s trademark. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights, as the Internet user will recognize the famous corporate name and trademark of the Complainant in the disputed domain name. As regards the second element, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest with respect to the disputed domain name, as it holds no trademark registration for ALLIANZ and has never received a license or any other form of authorization or consent from the Complainant to make use of the ALLIANZ trademark. The Complainant also argues that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, did not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. With regard to the third element, the Complainant argues that given the well-known status of its ALLIANZ trademark, it cannot be reasonably argued that the Respondent was not aware of the trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by using an email address associated with the disputed domain name to phish private data from individuals. The Respondent displays the ALLIANZ trademark on the website at which the disputed domain name redirects. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Notwithstanding the fact that no Response has been filed, the Panel shall consider the issues present in the case based on the statements and documents submitted by the Complainant. “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following elements: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant must establish that it has a trademark or service mark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark for the Complainant to succeed. Given the evidence put forward by the Complainant, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has proved its rights over the ALLIANZ trademark. As regards the question of identity or confusing similarity for the purpose of the Policy, it requires a comparison of the disputed domain name with the trademarks in which the Complainant holds rights. According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), “this test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name”. Also, according to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing”. Here the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark in addition to the terms “investors” and “ltd” and a hyphen. These additions do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark. The fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s trademark is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for the purpose of the Policy, despite the addition of other words to such marks. The addition of an additional term (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. It is well accepted by UDRP panels that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), such as “.com”, is typically ignored when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusing similar to a trademark. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. This Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and therefore finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any of the following circumstances, if found by the Panel, may demonstrate the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name: (i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The consensus view of UDRP panels on the burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is summarized in section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, which states: “[…] where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.” In the present case, the Complainant has established a prima facie case that it holds rights over the trademark ALLIANZ and claims that the Respondent has no legitimate interests or rights to acquire and use the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. By not submitting a Response, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See for a similar finding Cash Converters Pty Ltd v. Mirriam Musonda-salati,WIPO Case No. D2014-1839. Furthermore, the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation and cannot constitute a fair use as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. With the evidence on file, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith To fulfill the third requirement of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. According to the unrebutted assertions of the Complainant, its ALLIANZ trademark was widely used in commerce well before the registration of the disputed domain name in February 2021. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. Under these circumstances, it is most likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the registration date of the disputed domain name. The Respondent provided no explanations for why he registered the disputed domain name. As regards the use of the disputed domain name, the website at which the disputed domain name redirected promoted services in the Complainant’s field of activity, offering investment services and displaying the Complainant trademark. Given the confusing similarity between the ALLIANZ trademark and the disputed domain name, Internet users would likely be confused into believing that the Complainant is affiliated with the website to which the disputed domain name resolved. Presumably, the Respondent intended to benefit from the confusion created. This amounts to use in bad faith. The fact that the website at which the disputed domain name currently resolves is inactive does not change the above conclusion. Passive holding of the disputed domain does not preclude a finding of bad faith, nor does it detract from the Respondent’s bad faith, as it has been established in prior UDRP decisions (e.g., Koç Holding A.S. v. KEEP B.T,WIPO Case No. D2009-0938; Allianz SE v. Everton Araujo,WIPO Case No. D2014-0431). The Panel finds that passive holding of the disputed domain name does not in the circumstances of this case prevent a finding of bad faith. There is no evidence in the record of a legitimate use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s trademark ALLIANZ has been extensively used by the Complainant and had significant goodwill and reputation by the time of the registration of the disputed domain name (see, e.g., Allianz SE v. Bill Kergants/Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2014-1822). The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark. UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. See section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The following factors were also considered by the Panel as indicative of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name: (i) the Respondent’s lack of response to the Complaint. See, Awesome Kids LLC and/or Awesome Kids L.L.C. v. Selavy Communications,WIPO Case No. D2001-0210; (ii) the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain name as per paragraph 4(b) of the Policy; (iii) the apparent change of the content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves after the receipt of the Complaint. The change to the Respondent’s website further supports a finding of bad faith. See Maplin Electronics Limited v. Lee Jeongsoon,WIPO Case No. D2006-0011 (change in website after receiving complaint was evidence of bad faith), and V&V Supremo Foods, Inc. v. pxlchk1@gmail.com,WIPO Case No. D2006-1373. Based on the evidence and circumstances of this case, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. 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 Mihaela Maravela
Sole Panelist
Date: April 27, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy