The Complainant is Swiss Re Ltd, Switzerland, represented by TIMES Attorneys, Switzerland.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Privacy Protect LLC, United States of America / Ruben Perez, Spain.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 9, 2021. On July 9, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 12, 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 July 27, 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 July 30, 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 July 30, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 19, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 10, 2021.
The Center appointed Willem J. H. Leppink as the sole panelist in this matter on September 20, 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 BackgroundThe following facts are undisputed.
The Complainant is a Swiss company and was founded in 1863. The Complainant is a global and leading wholesale provider of reinsurance, insurance and financial services. The Complainant’s Group is one of the largest reinsurers in the world.
The Complainant owns several trademark registrations comprising the word element “SWISS RE”, including but not limited to the national Swiss Trade Mark (word mark) SWISS RE with registration no. 717011, with a filing and registration date of July 26, 2010, and the International Registration (word mark) SWISS RE, inter alia designating the European Union, with registration no. 1067014, with a registration date November 26, 2010 for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41 and 42 (hereinafter jointly referred to as the “Trademark”).
The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent dated May 28, 2021.
The Domain Name was registered on May 26, 2021.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantInsofar as relevant for deciding this matter, the Complainant contends the following.
The Domain Name is identical to the Trademark and only adds the term “global” and “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”). Further, the Domain Name does not add or modify any distinctive element. As a result, the Trademark and the Domain Name are close to identical and confusingly similar. According to the Complainant, it was obvious that the Domain Name was not meant to be distinguishable from the SWISS RE trademarks.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant is not aware of any person or entity outside its organization who could hold any license or who could raise any other justification for registration of the Domain Name. Also, the fact that the Domain Name resolves to a page with links to other websites indicates that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
The Domain Name was registered and has been used in bad faith. The Complainant is well-known and the Domain Name clearly refers to the Complainant. Also, the Domain Name only includes links to other websites. The Complainant states that this is a typical holding page pattern for registrants who do not use a domain name and who do not have any own interests in the website and who have not registered the domain name in good faith.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsPursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements:
(i) the 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 Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark or service mark and, if so, the Domain Name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the Trademark valid in inter alia Switzerland and the European Union.
As set out in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7, the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The threshold test for identity or confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Trademark involves a relatively straightforward comparison.
The Domain Name comprises the Complainant’s trademark SWISS RE, the term, “global”, and the “.com” gTLD.
In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark. The Domain Name consists of the elements “swissre”, “global” and “.com”. The element “swissre” is identical to the Trademark. The Panel finds that the Trademark is included in its entirety in the Domain Name and that the additional term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.
Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that the first element of the Policy is met.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Panel has carefully considered the factual allegations that have been made by the Complainant and are supported by the submitted evidence.
In particular, the Respondent has failed to offer the Panel any of the types of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy from which the Panel might conclude that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, such as:
(i) use or preparation to use the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of the dispute; or
(ii) being commonly known by the Domain Name (as an individual, business or other organization) even if the Respondent has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) making legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Respondent does not seem to be affiliated with the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that “Swissre global” is the Respondent’s name or that the Respondent is commonly known under this name. There is also no evidence that the Respondent is, or has ever been, a licensee of the Complainant or that the Respondent has ever asked, or has ever been permitted in any way by the Complainant to register or use the Trademark, or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the Trademark.
According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the website where the Domain Name resolves is a parked page comprising Pay-Per-Click (“PPC”) links such as “Portfolio” and “Aktuelle Aktien”, which compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Trademark. As set out in the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.9, and noting that the Domain Name incorporates the Trademark in its entirety, the Panel finds that such use does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services.
It is also clear from the facts presented in this case that the Respondent is not making any legitimate non-commercial fair use of the Domain Name.
Noting further that the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint and thus has not taken any steps to rebut the Complainant’s arguments, the Panel finds that the Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that the second element of the Policy is met.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel refers to its considerations under section 6.B and adds the following.
In light of the evidence filed by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Trademark and the Complainant’s activities are well known throughout the world. Accordingly, in the Panel’s view, the Respondent must have been aware of the existence of the Complainant’s activities and rights at the time the Respondent registered the Domain Name.
In the Panel’s view, there is no plausible explanation why the Respondent registered the Domain Name other than the Respondent intending to trade off the goodwill and reputation associated with the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trademark.
Last, the Respondent uses a privacy shield to hide his contact details, which is also an additional factor for considering a registration in bad faith (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.6).
Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that the third element of the Policy is met.
7. DecisionFor the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name
Willem J. H. Leppink
Sole Panelist
Date: October 4, 20201