Complainant are Allianz Seguros S/A, Brazil and Allianz SE, Germany, represented by JM Silveira & Associados Propriedade Intelectual Ltda., Brazil.
Respondent is Withheld for Privacy ehf, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Severina Matias, Brazil. 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 25, 2021. On May 26, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 26, 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 Complainant on May 31, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on June 15, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 16, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 6, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 14, 2021. The Center appointed Gabriel F. Leonardos as the sole panelist in this matter on July 30, 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 Complainants are Allianz Seguros S/A and Allianz SE. Allianz SE is a German multinational financial services company headquartered in Munich, Germany. It is the holding company of the Allianz Group, one of the oldest and largest international insurance and financial services Group in the world. The Allianz group, funded in 1890, and its subsidiary companies count with over 147.000 employees and 85 million customers in more than 70 countries, including Brazil, where its subsidiary Allianz Seguros S/A is located. Allianz SE leads the German insurance market and has a strong international presence. Since its inception, Allianz SE has continuously operated under the sign ALLIANZ to identify insurance, healthcare and financial services. Complainants allege they have spent substantial resources to build its trademark’s portfolio over the years, so that Allianz SE owns exclusive rights before ALLIANZ trademark and its variations in different jurisdictions around the world, including in Brazil, where Respondent is located, making it a distinctive and well-known sign. Below are some examples of Complainants’ Brazilian trademark registrations: Registration No. Trademark Filing Date Class 819.803.782 ALLIANZ January 28, 1997 NCL (8)36 820.584.401 ALLIANZ February 19, 1998 NCL (8) 35 821.246.607 ALLIANZ GROUP December 04, 1998 30(10.20.30) 828.589.160 ALLIANZGI June 05, 2006 NCL (8) 36 In addition, the sign ALLIANZ is incorporated in Complainants’ trade names and several domain names. Meanwhile, the disputed domain name At last, it is important to note that the disputed domain name resolved to a website offering “auto auction services” online. By the time of this decision, the disputed domain name was resolving to an inactive website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainants submit that ALLIANZ is a distinctive trademark used by the group for over 100 years. In order to protect its trademark rights, Allianz SE has registered the mentioned sign worldwide, as well as trade names and domain names composed by the term ALLIANZ. Complainants plead that the disputed domain name According to Complainants, the complement of the disputed domain name “leiloes”, refers, in Portuguese, to “auto auctions”, which is an activity inherent to the auto insurance business, provided by Complainants. This way, Complainants allege that Internet users would be easily led to think that the disputed domain name Furthermore, Complainants affirm that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the trademark ALLIANZ nor any permission to register such trademark as a domain name, under the circumstances stated in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. As the disputed domain name was registered by Respondent using a service which conceals and keeps anonymous the real identity of the domain name owner, Complainants were not able to identify any information implying that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or may have any rights or legitimate interests to it. Considering this scenario, Complainants affirm that Respondent’s sole intention is to take unfair advantage of the well-known trademark ALLIANZ, also fulfilling paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy and paragraph 3(b)(ix)(2) of the Rules. At last, Complainants state that the disputed domain name In this regard, Complainants note that the disputed domain name resolves to a website illustrated by the well-known ALLIANZ trademark, offering auto auction services. According to Complainants, such website indicates, including, the address of a real and existing branch of Complainants, with Complainants’ official brand and logo on the façade of the building. This way, Complainants allege that Respondent is clearly seeking to divert Internet users – which were searching for Complainants’ official website and services - to its own website for the purpose of commercial gain, most probably by practicing fraud, what is an evidence of bad faith. Thus, Complainants sustain that paragraph 4(a)(iii) and 4(b) of the Policy and paragraph (b)(ix)(3) of the Rules would have been fulfilled. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed in a UDRP complaint, complainants must demonstrate that all the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, as following: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) 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. The burden of proving these elements is upon Complainants. Respondent had 20 days to submit a response in accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules and failed to do so. Paragraph 5(f) of the Rules establishes that if a respondent does not respond to the Complaint, the Panel’s decision shall be based upon the Complaints. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainants have duly proven that Allianz SE owns prior trademark rights upon the sign ALLIANZ registered in many jurisdictions, including in Brazil where Respondent is established, and that the disputed domain name The term “seg” is an abbreviation, in Portuguese, for the word “insurance”, which is the main activity of the Allianz Group, and the word “leiloes” means “auctions” in Portuguese, which is an activity inherent to the auto insurance business, provided by Complainants. In this context, the addition of the terms “seg” and “leiloes” does not prevent the finding of a confusing similarity See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name Therefore, the Panel considers the requirement of the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests 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 as follows: “[w]hile the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of ‘proving a negative’, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, 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.” Complainants contend that Respondent has no license or other agreement with any of the Complainants authorizing them to use the trademark or trade name ALLIANZ. Moreover, there is no evidence of Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, the disputed domain name resolved to a website offering auto auction services. In this case, noting the facts and contentions listed above, the Panel finds that Complainants have made a prima facie showing that Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests, so the burden of production shifts to Respondent. As Respondent has not replied to Complainants’ contentions, the Panel has considered Complainants’ unrebutted prima facie case to be sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii)). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances that, without limitation, are deemed evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Firstly, the Panel finds it is highly unlikely that Respondent had no knowledge of Complainants’ rights to the trademark ALLIANZ at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, taking into consideration the following facts (i) the trademark ALLIANZ is a well-known brand worldwide, including in Brazil where Respondent is located; (ii) the disputed domain name was registered by Respondent on March 24, 2021 – many years after the registration of Complainants’ trademarks listed in section 4 of this decision; and (iii) the disputed domain name resolves to a website containing images of the well-known ALLIANZ trademark. Therefore, evidence shows that Respondent was likely aware of Complainants’ business and registered the disputed domain name to take advantage of its reputation. In addition, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name has been used by Respondent to offer auto auction services, which is an activity inherent to the automobiles’ insurance business, also provided by Complainants to their consumers. The addition of the terms “seg” and “leiloes” after the trademark ALLIANZ in the disputed domain name Moreover, the Panel assumes that Respondent’s intention of passing through Complainants becomes evident when considering that the website hosted by the disputed domain name indicated the address of a real and existing branch of Allianz Group. At last, the Panel draws attention to the fact that Complainants sent a cease & desist letter to Respondent in an attempt to solve the matter amicably, but received no formal reply. Apparently, Respondent simply took off the website that was being hosted by the disputed domain name. For the Panel, such behavior demonstrates Respondent’s admittance of guilt, indicating that he was acting in bad faith when registering and using the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainants. Therefore, all the above-mentioned shows that Respondent was likely deliberately trying to create confusion and mislead Complainants’ costumers for commercial gain in an unlawful way. Finally, the fact that Respondent was using a service to hide its real identity of the disputed domain name records and that he has not presented a response to the Complaint reinforces the conclusion that Respondent acted in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. As such, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Gabriel F. Leonardos
(logo)
(word mark)
(logo)
(word mark)
Sole Panelist
Date: August 13, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy