Complainant is Allianz SE, Germany, represented by Diana Miley, Germany.
Respondent is \u570bWei \u694a, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 5, 2021. On March 5, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 8, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the 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 12, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 12, 2021 and an amendment to the Complaint on March 17, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint and 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 18, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 7, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 13, 2021. The Center appointed Christopher S. Gibson as the sole panelist in this matter on May 6, 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 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 Versichenmgs-AG, was founded in 1890 in Berlin, Germany. In 1893, the first international branch was opened with an office in London. Since its inception, Complainant has continuously operated under the Allianz name, and has used the ALLIANZ mark in connection with its insurance, healthcare and financial services products. The Allianz Group is one of the leading integrated financial services providers worldwide. With approximately 150,000 employees worldwide, the Group serves approximately 100 million customers in more than 70 countries. On the insurance side, Complainant is the market leader in the German market and has a strong international presence. Complainant is one of the world’s largest asset managers, with third-party assets of EUR 1.712 trillion under management at the end of the year 2020. Information about the Allianz Group can be found on its website at “www.allianz.com”. Total revenues of Allianz Group worldwide in the year 2020 were EUR 140 billion. Over the years, Complainant has devoted substantial resources and efforts building goodwill in the ALLIANZ family of marks, which are used to distinguish its products from all other products in the same class. Complainant directly owns exclusive rights in the ALLIANZ mark and derivatives thereof in jurisdictions around the world. Under the ALLIANZ mark, Complainant offers a wide range of financial, insurance and assistance services. ALLIANZ is a distinctive and well-known mark used in connection with Complainant’s several businesses for well over 100 years. In its Best Global Brands 2020 study, the international marketing agency Interbrand ranked the brand “Allianz” as No. 39 with a value of USD 12.935 billion. Complainant has registered and protected the ALLIANZ mark worldwide. The table below lists some of Complainant’s trademark registrations. Trademark Country/Register Reg. No. Reg. Date Allianz International Register 447 004 September 12, 1979 Allianz International Register 714 618 May 4, 1999 Allianz and Design International Register 713 841 May 3, 1999 Allianz Germany 987481 July 11, 1979 Allianz Germany 399 27 827 July 16, 1999 Allianz EU Community Trademark 000013656 July 22, 2002 Allianz and Design EU Community Trademark 002981298 April 5, 2004 The Allianz Group has registered its flagship brand “Allianz” comprehensively under the available top-levels domains (“TLDs”). The following table lists some of the domain names registered in the name of Allianz Technology SE, the German IT affiliate company of Allianz SE, or the local subsidiaries of Complainant: allianz.de Allianz Technology SE, Germany allianz.com Allianz Technology SE, Germany allianz.us Allianz Technology SE, Germany allianz.fr Allianz Vie, France allianzgi.com Allianz Global Investors, USA allianz-jobs.com Allianz Technology SE, Germany The Domain Name was registered on March 2, 2021 and according to the evidence in the Complaint, it resolves to a site that included Complainant’s ALLIANZ marks and elements of Complainant’s logo, as well as the look and feel of Complainant’s own website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant (i) Identical or confusingly similar Complainant states that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which Complainant has rights. The Internet user will recognize the famous corporate name and trademark of Complainant in the Domain Name. Through the Domain Name, customers expect to reach one of the websites belonging to Complainant or one of its subsidiaries. The same applies if a customer receives email correspondence under the Domain Name. By using the name “Allianz”, the clear impression is made that the Domain Name refers to the renowned ALLIANZ mark. Thus, the Domain Name leads customers to the wrong location and increases the danger of confusion and exploitation. As stated above, the Allianz Group is one of the largest providers of all kind of financial services worldwide, including in particular insurance, asset management and assistance services. The use of the Domain Name for investment services implies that Respondent belongs to Allianz Group and deludes potential customers into thinking that Respondent is part of the Allianz Group. Internet users will foremost recognize the Allianz brand in the Domain Name. Thereby, such wording leads to the conclusion that the Domain Name could be part of the Allianz Group. Therefore, there is a likelihood of confusion between Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademarks and the Domain Name. In this regard, Complainant highlights that different authorities have already confirmed the reputation and highly distinctive character of its ALLIANZ mark. One example is a decision by the Oberlandesgericht Munchen (Higher Regional Court of Munich) dated November 25, 1999. In that judgement, the court ruled that the hip-hop group “Die Allianz” was infringing Complainant’s trademarks. One reason for this favorable decision was that the court held the ALLIANZ mark to have an extraordinarily high level of recognition with the general public. Similarly, The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market came to the same conclusion in its ruling in the opposition against the contested application for “Alliance Capital” dated December 9, 2003. Complainant is constantly taking legal steps against other domain names containing or consisting of the name “Allianz”. It has obtained a temporary restraining order at the Landgericht Munchen I (Munich District Court I) in a proceeding against the domain name (ii) Rights or legitimate interests Complainant submits that every connection with the Domain Name means damage to the valuable image of Complainant and poses a threat to individuals who are potentially interested in an investment relationship with the Allianz Group. Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the ALLIANZ mark or in the goodwill Complainant has developed in its mark. To the contrary, Respondent holds no trademark registrations for any ALLIANZ mark and has never received a license or any other form of authorization or consent from Complainant to make use of the ALLIANZ mark. Therefore, Respondent has no right to or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. Complainant contends it is obvious that Respondent is exploiting the fact that Internet users are hoping to access a website that – or to communicate with someone who – belongs to Complainant’s group of companies. Respondent is thus trading on the fame of Complainant’s mark, which is connected in the public perception with insurance and financial services. Moreover, Respondent is exploiting with its website the good name of Complainant. It is apparent that Respondent is a free rider and fraudster trying to take unfair advantage of Complainant’s well-known trademark. Complainant contends that Respondent’s activities do not correspond to any of the circumstances set forth in the Policy, paragraph 4(c), which would evidence any rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Further, before having been notified of this dispute, Respondent did not use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, and Complainant’s prior rights bar Respondent from being known by the Domain Name. Respondent is also not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. For all the above reasons, Respondent has no legitimate right or interest in the Domain Name. (iii) Registered and used in bad faith Complainant contends that Respondent, by using the Domain Name, intentionally attempted to convince Internet users to act as being instructed (i.e., to reveal private information and data) by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s ALLIANZ mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Domain Name, per the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv). Complainant submits the ALLIANZ trademark is very well known in many countries all over the world, especially with regard to insurance and financial affairs. Complainant has a strong reputation that is based on customers’ trust in its service marks. It cannot be reasonably argued that Respondent could have been unaware of the ALLIANZ trademark when registering the Domain Name. This conclusion is supported by the fact that Respondent website wholly incorporates Complainant’s trademark and logo. Moreover, the Domain Name refers to the German term “Allianz” without any other reference to Germany or the German language. Hence, it is most unlikely that Respondent just happened to unintentionally select Complainant’s distinctive ALLIANZ mark and combine it with the “.fun” Top-Level Domain (“TLD”). Respondent clearly sought to register the Domain Name because of its association with Complainant and hoped to capitalize on Complainant’s reputation. Therefore, Complainant submits it is inevitable that Respondent acted in bad faith when registering the Domain Name and continues to do so by using the website to phish private data from individuals interested in the faked investment services. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed on its Complaint, Complainant must demonstrate that the three elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied. These elements are that: (i) the Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated it has well-established rights in its long-standing and well-known ALLIANZ trademarks, both through registration and widespread use. The Panel further finds that the Domain Name incorporates the ALLIANZ mark in its entirety, with no variation. Indeed, disregarding the “.fun” TLD, the Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s ALLIANZ mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Regarding the second element of the Policy, section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, 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”. Here, the Panel determines that Complainant has made out a prima facie case, while Respondent has failed to respond to Complainant’s contentions. The Panel finds that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademarks; that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name; that Respondent has not used the Domain Name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, nor used it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the Domain Name is used to impersonate or suggest sponsorship or endorsement by Complainant by including the entirety of Complainant’s well-known ALLIANZ trademark as the only element, along with the “.fun” TLD. Further, Respondent has not attempted to justify why the Domain Names were registered. The evidence submitted by Complainant indicates that, prior to the initiation of the dispute, the Domain Name was linked to a website that sought to impersonate Complainant and/or pass off on Complainant’s ALLIANZ marks by including elements of Complainant’s logo, as well as the look and feel of Complainant’s own website. In cases such as this, where Respondent attempts to impersonate Complainant and its well-known mark, this is not a fair or bona fide use and does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests. See Educational Testing Service v. Ali Mohammed Ahmed, Afakcenter,WIPO Case No. D2017-1600 (where the website associated with the disputed domain name was almost identical in appearance to the complainant’s website, this was not a bona fide use of the domain name). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, which has not been rebutted by Respondent. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has established the second element of the Policy in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant demonstrate that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1, states, “bad faith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark”. Here, the Panel determines that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. There is little doubt that Respondent, when registering the Domain Name, was aware of Complainant and its ALLIANZ marks, and intentionally targeted them, when registering the Domain Name. Complainant’s trademark registrations and use of its marks predate registration of the Domain Name by more than 100 years. Respondent has used the Domain Name to impersonate Complainant in what appears to be a scheme to defraud Internet users. Given these facts, the Panel considers that the only logical conclusion is Respondent targeted Complainant and its marks when registering the Domain Name. See Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas,WIPO Case No. D2000-0226 (where a domain name is “so obviously connected with such a well-known name and products, its very use by someone with no connection with the products suggests opportunistic bad faith”). This point is further confirmed by Respondent’s use of the Domain Name. The evidence indicates that Respondent has used the Domain Name in an attempt to impersonate Complainant, by displaying Complainant’s logo and other relevant elements on Respondent’s site. Respondent is using the fame of Complainant’s ALLIANZ mark to improperly increase traffic to the site linked to this Domain Name for Respondent’s own commercial gain, likely for purposes of defrauding users. When attempting to visit the website linked to the Domain Name, both the Chrome and Firefox browsers post a warning that site is a “deceptive site” that might “trick you into doing something dangerous like installing software or revealing your personal information (for example, passwords, phone numbers, or credit cards).” The Panel finds that Respondent, through this scheme, has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to Respondent’s online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s ALLIANZ marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of Respondent’s scheme. In conclusion, the Panel determines that, for all of the above reasons, the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, Complainant has satisfied the third 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 Domain Name, Christopher S. Gibson
Sole Panelist
Date: May 20, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy