The Complainant is Allianz SE, Germany, represented internally.
The Respondent is 黄冠荣 (huang guan rong), China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 22, 2021. On March 22, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 24, 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 26, 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 amendment in English to the Complaint on April 26, 2021. On March 26, 2021, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed the request that English be the language of the proceeding on March 29, 2021. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. 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 in English and Chinese, and the proceedings commenced on April 27, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 17, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 28, 2021. The Center appointed Peter J. Dernbach as the sole panelist in this matter on June 7, 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 a German company that provides international insurance products and financial services. The Complainant, Allianz SE, is a company of Allianz Group. The first company of Allianz Group was founded in 1890. The Complainant is the owner of ALLIANZ series trademarks including: International trademark ALLIANZ, registration number 447004, registered since September 12, 1979; International trademark ALLIANZ, registration number 714618, registered since May 4, 1999; International trademark ALLIANZ and design, registration number 713841, registered since May 3, 1999; Germany trademark ALLIANZ, registration number 987481, registered since July 11, 1979; Germany trademark ALLIANZ, registration number 39927827, registered since July 16, 1999; European Union trademark ALLIANZ, registration number 000013656, registered since July 22, 2002; and European Union trademark ALLIANZ and design, registration number 002981298, registered since April 5, 2004. The Allianz Group is also the owner of several domain names, including The Disputed Domain Name The Complainant’s submissions may be summarized as follows: (i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its ALLIANZ series trademarks. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. The Allianz Group is one of the largest providers of financial services worldwide. With the use of the name Allianz in the Disputed Domain Name, the clear impression is made that the Disputed Domain Name refers to the Complainant’s ALLIANZ series marks. Through the Disputed Domain Name, customers expect to reach a website belonging to Allianz SE or one of its subsidiaries. The use of the Disputed Domain Name (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent holds no trademark registrations for any Allianz mark and has never received license, authorization or consent from the Complainant to use ALLIANZ trademarks. The Complainant argues that the Respondent is exploiting the fact that Internet users are hoping to access a website belonging to the Complainant’s group of companies and is using the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves to exploit the good name of the Complainant for the Respondent’s own commercial gain. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent’s activities do not correspond to any of the circumstances set forth in the Policy paragraph 4(c). (iii) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s Allianz trademarks are already very well known in many countries around the world, especially with regard to insurance products and financial services. It cannot be reasonably argued that the Respondent was unaware of the trademark when registering the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent’s name refers to the German term Allianz without any other reference to Germany or the German language at all. The Respondent clearly sought to register the Disputed Domain Name for its association with the Complainant. The Complainant concludes that it is inevitable that the Respondent acted in bad faith when registering the Disputed Domain Name and continues to do so by using the website for financial services. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Language of the Proceeding Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that “[u]nless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.” Paragraph 10(b) of the Rules provides that “[i]n all cases, the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case”; and paragraph 10(c) of the Rules provides that “[t]he Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition.” The language of the Registration Agreement for the Disputed Domain Name is Chinese. However, the Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website on which all the content is in English, showing that the Respondent has the ability to present his case if the language of proceeding in English. The Respondent was given an opportunity to comment on the language of the proceeding and failed to do so. In order to proceed in Chinese, the Complainant would have to retain specialized translation services with additional times. Given the above considerations, the Panel decides that the language of the proceeding be English. 7. Discussion and Findings In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this administrative proceeding and obtain the requested remedy (in this case, transfer of the Disputed Domain Name), the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements are present: (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 has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Disputed Domain Name is a combination of the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark, the word element “se”, the numeric element “1890” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The Panel finds that the inclusion of “se” and “1890” does not prevent the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark from being recognizable in the Disputed Domain Name. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) which states that “[w]here the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The nature of such additional term(s) may however bear on assessment of the second and third elements.” Generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) generally are often disregarded when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity of the complainant’s mark. In the current case, the inclusion of the gTLD “.com” does not prevent the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark. For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, and the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the following circumstances which, without limitation, if found by the Panel, shall demonstrate that the Respondent has rights to, or legitimate interests in, the Disputed Domain Name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: “(i) before any notice to [the Respondent] 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] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the [disputed]domain name, even if [the Respondent 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 Complainant states that it has neither licensed nor authorized the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s ALLIANZ series trademarks. According to the information provided by the Registrar, the Respondent’s name does not appear to be related to the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website copying the identical designed trademark and photos from the Complainant. Furthermore, the Respondent provides financial services similar to the Complainant’s services through the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves. Such misleading use of the Disputed Domain Name is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, and the burden of production shifts to the Respondent. The Respondent has not submitted any argument or evidence in response. Therefore, based on the above, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the second element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that “[a domain-name holder] is required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that [a complainant] asserts to the applicable [administrative-dispute-resolution service providers], in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that […] (iii) [the respondent’s] domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.” Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy explicitly states, in relevant part, that “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: […] “(iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location”. The Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademarks have been registered in many countries around the world. These registrations were made long before the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has not submitted any allegation or evidence suggesting that the Respondent selected the term identical to the Complainant’s full name “Allianz SE” with an additional numeric element “1890” (which corresponds to the year the first company in the Allianz Group was founded) for any reason other than to mislead Internet users to believe that such website is related to the Complainant. The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered in bad faith. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website copying the Complainant’s trademark and photos. Such website even purports to provide similar financial services as those provided by the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name attempts to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s fraudulent website by creating a likelihood of confusion for the Respondent’s commercial gain. The Panel concludes that such use of the Disputed Domain Name is a use in bad faith. Having considered the above, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, and the Complainant has fulfilled the condition provided in paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 8. 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 Peter J. Dernbach
Sole Panelist
Date: June 21, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy