The Complainant is Swiss Re Ltd., Switzerland, represented by TIMES Attorneys, Switzerland.
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Betrader Pro, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 4, 2021. On May 4, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 4, 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 May 10, 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 to the Complaint on May 12, 2021. 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, and the proceedings commenced on May 19, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 8, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 10, 2021. The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on June 28, 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 a wholesale provider of reinsurance, insurance, and financial services. Complainant was founded in Zurich, Switzerland, in 1863 and serves clients through a network of over 60 offices globally. Complainant’s group is currently one of the largest reinsurers in the world. Complainant is the owner of many registered trademarks in many countries for marks that include SWISS RE, including the following: -SWISS RE, Swiss registration No. 717011, registered on June 1, 2018, and International Registration No. 1067014, registered on November 26, 2010. The disputed domain name was registered on January 22, 2021 and it resolves to a website with similar content to Complainant’s website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in its claim, Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to 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”. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has demonstrated that it has rights in the trademark SWISS RE in connection with financial and monetary services, and related goods and services. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety, with the addition of two “s” at the end. This does not add any distinctive element to the disputed domain name and it does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with Complainant’s mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant contends that Respondent is not affiliated with or connected to Complainant in any way. At no time has Complainant licensed or otherwise endorsed, sponsored or authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s marks or to register the disputed domain name. The record is devoid of any facts that establish any rights or legitimate interests of Respondent in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has any rights that might predate Complainant’s adoption and use of its marks. Respondent has not made, and is not making, a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that copies Complainant’s website content. The record indicates that Respondent was well aware of Complainant’s well-known marks and used the disputed domain name in an effort to create the false impression that Respondent is associated with Complainant and is an authorized representative of Complainants. Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which has not been rebutted by Respondent. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Complainant’s mark is well-known. The record therefore indicates that Respondent most likely had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its SWISS RE marks prior to registering the disputed domain name. It is reasonable to infer that Respondent’s purpose in registering the disputed domain name and displaying Complainant’s website content at the disputed domain name is to send deceptive emails to obtain sensitive or confidential personal information or to solicit payment of fraudulent invoices by the Complainant’s actual or prospective customers for Respondent’s personal profit and gain. Alternatively, the record indicates that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name for the deceptive purpose of impersonating the Complainant in bad faith and thereby disrupting the Complainant’s business. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name 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 Lynda J. Zadra-Symes
-SWISS RE (stylized), Swiss registration No. 2P-411846, registered on August 16, 1994, and International Registration No. 624637, registered on August 16, 1994.
-SWISS RE (and design), Swiss registration No. 658419, registered on May 12, 2014, and International Registration No. 1223592, registered on June 12, 2014.
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Sole Panelist
Date: July 12, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy