The Complainant is Allianz SE, Germany, represented by Steffen Dahlem, Germany.
The Respondent is Alex Zybov, Daxx Market LTD, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 31, 2021. On September 1, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 1, 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 September 2, 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 September 2, 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 September 8, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 28, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 29, 2021.
The Center appointed Martin Schwimmer as the sole panelist in this matter on October 18, 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 Complainant, Allianz SE, is a company organized under the laws of Germany and the European Union. It is the ultimate parent company of one of the oldest and largest international insurance and financial services groups in the world, dating back to 1890. Since inception, the Complainant has continuously used the ALLIANZ mark in connection with insurance, healthcare, and financial services products. The Complainant has approximately 147,000 employees serving around 100 million customers in more than 70 countries. It is one of the world’s largest asset managers, with third party assets under management of EUR 1.686 billion at the end of 2019. The total revenues of the Complainant’s group worldwide in 2020 amounted to EUR 140 billion. The international marketing agency Interbrand ranked the “Allianz” brand in 2020 as number 39 with a value of USD 12.935 billion, up 7 percent.
The Respondent registered the Domain Name
The Complainant owns numerous registrations worldwide for its ALLIANZ mark, including, for example, International Registered Trademark No. 447004 for the word mark ALLIANZ, registered on September 12, 1979 in use class 36 (insurance and finance), and designated in respect of some 34 territories. The Complainant put forward additional ALLIANZ trademarks in evidence.
The Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark has been held to be well-known by German courts, the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market, and by UDRP panels. It is one of the most valuable brands in the world.
The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent to use the ALLIANZ trademark in any manner.
The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to host a website promoting a financial trading platform under the name “ALLIANZMARKET” is not a bona fide use, but is intended to confuse and deceive the public as to a non-existent relationship with the Complainant.
The Complainant brought a parallel proceeding before the Center against this Respondent based on the identical or highly similar content, regarding the similar domain name
The Respondent intentionally targeted the Complainant’s trademark, and thus registered the Domain Name in bad faith.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarIn the present case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has demonstrated rights in the ALLIANZ registered trademark through its ownership of numerous trademark registrations. Furthermore, use of the Complainant’s trademark is demonstrated at its website at “www.allianz.com”.
The Domain Name reflects the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the word “market,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.biz,” which suffix may be ignored for purposes of this analysis. The generic word “market” does not to diminish the recognizability of the Complainant’s well-known trademark. In fact, a panel has previously held that the word “market” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with this Complainant’s trademark in the parallel proceeding against this Respondent. See Allianz SE v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Alex Zybov, Daxx Market LTD,WIPO Case No. D2021-1543 (
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsUnder the Policy, a complainant may establish this element by making out a prima facie case, not rebutted by the respondent, that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the requisite prima facie case based on its submissions that the Respondent holds no trademark registration corresponding to the ALLIANZ mark, has received no license or permission from the Complainant for the use of such mark, is not commonly known by the Domain Name, is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services thereby but rather is exploiting the good name of the Complainant via its website, and is not making any noncommercial or fair use thereof. In these circumstances, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to bring forward evidence of its rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The Respondent has not responded to these contentions and thus they stand unrebutted.
The Respondent uses the Domain Name in connection with a purported financial trading platform. As noted by the Panel in the decision regarding
The Panel thus finds that the Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case and accordingly finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been satisfied.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Panel finds that the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark is well-known in connection with financial services. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to promote a purported financial trading platform would appear to clearly be targeted to trade off the Complainant’s reputation. In the
This Panel has reviewed the Respondent’s arguments in the
In view of the above circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith and accordingly that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy have been satisfied.
7. DecisionFor 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,
Martin Schwimmer
Sole Panelist
Date: November 2, 2021