WIPO Domain Name Decision D2021-3187 for allianz-bekasi.com

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Allianz SE v. Domain Admin, Whoisprotection.cc / Sabekti Anggara, Putra Solusi Case No. D2021-3187 1. The Parties

Complainant is Allianz SE, Germany, represented internally.

Respondent is Domain Admin, Whoisprotection.cc, Malaysia / Sabekti Anggara, Putra Solusi, Indonesia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Mat Bao Corporation (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 27, 2021. On September 27, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 28, 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 September 29, 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 September 29, 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 October 15, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 4, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on November 11, 2021.

The Center appointed Bradley A. Slutsky as the sole panelist in this matter on November 26, 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 the parent company of Allianz Group, an international insurance and financial services group. The Annexes to the Complaint contain a number of Complainant’s trademark registrations dating back to at least 1979, including German trademark registration number 987481 which was registered on July 11, 1979. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 5, 2021. There is a website at the disputed domain name that among other things refers to insurance products and solicits visitors to subscribe to a newsletter.

5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

Complainant asserts that Allianz Group began operating in 1890 and has continuously operated under the ALLIANZ name since that time. Complainant states that Allianz Group has approximately 147,000 employees and serves approximately 100 million customers in more than 70 countries, with worldwide revenue in 2020 of EUR 140 billion. Complainant asserts that it owns exclusive rights in the ALLIANZ mark throughout the world, and has used the mark for well over 100 years, including for a number of domain names such as , , , and . Complainant asserts that in 2020 Interbrand ranked the ALLIANZ mark the 39th best brand in the world, with a brand value of nearly USD 13 billion. Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANZ mark, and that the use of the disputed domain name for insurance services implies that Respondent is part of the Allianz Group and deludes potential customers into thinking that Respondent is part of the Allianz Group. Complainant submits decisions from German courts and from WIPO panels finding a number of Allianz-formatives to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANZ mark. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent has no trademark registrations for any ALLIANZ mark and Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized or consented for Respondent to use the mark. Complainant also asserts that consumers will assume the disputed domain name is associated with Complainant, and that Respondent intends to trade on the fame of Complainant’s mark. Complainant further alleges that before having been notified of this dispute, Respondent did not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Complainant also asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, in that Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users to reveal private information by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. Complainant asserts that the ALLIANZ mark is “very well-known in many countries all over the world, especially with regard to insurance and financial affairs”, that Respondent was aware of this reputation when registering the disputed domain name, and that Respondent continues to use the website and email associated with the disputed domain name “to phish private data from individuals interested in the faked insurance services”.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Pursuant to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, a panel in UDRP proceedings “shall 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”.

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant must prove the 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.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”.

Complainant’s trademark registrations in the Annexes to the Complaint demonstrate that Complainant has rights in the ALLIANZ mark.

The disputed domain name consists of the ALLIANZ mark, followed by “-bekasi”, followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. Generally, “where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing”. WIPO Overview of Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The addition of “-bekasi” – which is the name of a city in Indonesia bordering Respondent’s location – does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8 (“the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”). Further, “[t]he applicable Top Level Domain (‘TLD’) in a domain name (e.g., ‘.com’, ‘.club’, ‘.nyc’) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test”. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant also must demonstrate that Respondent has “no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name”, paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

“Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate [Respondent’s] rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):

(i) before any notice to [Respondent] of the dispute, [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) [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) ha[s] been commonly known by the [disputed] domain name, even if [Respondent has] acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) [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.” Policy, paragraph 4(c).

There is no evidence that Respondent was making a bona fide use of the disputed domain name before receiving notice of this dispute, or that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, or that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Rather, Complainant asserts that Respondent has no trademark registrations for any ALLIANZ mark, that Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized or consented for Respondent to use the mark, that consumers will assume the disputed domain name is associated with Complainant, and that Respondent intends to trade on the fame of Complainant’s mark.

In the absence of some explanation from Respondent as to why “allianz-bekasi” was chosen for the disputed domain name, it is not obvious why the name would have been chosen other than to refer to Complainant. As demonstrated by the screenshots in the Annexes to the Complaint, the website at the disputed domain name refers to Complainant, uses Complainant’s logo, refers to Allianz insurance, and solicits users to subscribe to a newsletter, among other things.

Complainant’s allegations make out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which Respondent has not rebutted. See, e.g., Allianz Seguros S/A and Allianz SE v. Withheld for Privacy ehf, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Severina Matias,WIPO Case No. D2021-1626 (“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 .”); Skyscanner Limited v. Mohan Pillai,WIPO Case No. D2020-3172 (finding a lack of rights or legitimate interests where “Respondent has not been authorized to use the Complainant’s mark, and there is no indication that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name within the contemplation of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy”); Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. v. Richard Stroud,WIPO Case No. D2016-0510 (“The Panel finds that the use of the Domain Name to divert Internet traffic to a scam or a phishing scheme is not a bona fide offering of goods or services.”); Cantor Fitzgerald Securities, Cantor Index Limited v. Cantor Index Limited,WIPO Case No. D2010-2204 (“Complainant asserts it has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use or register its CANTOR mark in the domain name. Although the WhoIs information identifies Respondent as ‘Cantor Index Limited’, the Panel finds no additional evidence that would provide a basis for finding that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name. … Complainant provided evidence that Respondent has a link at the website to an application form for allegedly opening an account with Respondent, which is used to harvest the confidential personal information of unsuspecting Internet users. This fraud, called phishing, cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. … Respondent clearly created the fraudulent site with the intent of capitalizing on confusion created by the similarity of the domain name and Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s domain name and website appear to relate to Complainant, when in fact there is no such connection. Such use of a domain name based on Complainant’s CANTOR mark to promote services unrelated to Complainant and to trade upon the goodwill associated with Complainant is not a legitimate use.”); Google Inc. v. Markus Weiler, Francotel Francophone Telecom,WIPO Case No. D2011-0921 (“There is no evidence in these Policy proceedings that the Complainant has authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Complainant has prior rights in the Trade Mark which precede the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name by over ten years. There is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden of production is thus on the Respondent to rebut this presumption”); WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1 (“Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.”).

Accordingly, the record supports a conclusion that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Complainant also bears the burden of establishing that the “domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith”. Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). As set forth in the Policy, paragraph 4(b):

“[T]he 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:

(i) circumstances indicating that [Respondent has] registered or [Respondent has] acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to [C]omplainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) [Respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [Respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) [Respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, [Respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s] web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [Respondent’s] website or location.”

“Given that the scenarios described in UDRP paragraph 4(b) are non-exclusive and merely illustrative, even where a complainant may not be able to demonstrate the literal or verbatim application of one of the above scenarios, evidence demonstrating that a respondent seeks to take unfair advantage of, abuse, or otherwise engage in behavior detrimental to Complainant’s trademark would also satisfy Complainant’s burden.” WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.

Complainant asserts that Respondent is attempting to attract Internet uses to reveal private information by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark, that the ALLIANZ mark is “very well-known in many countries all over the world, especially with regard to insurance and financial affairs”, that Respondent was aware of this reputation when registering the disputed domain name, and that Respondent continues to use the website and email associated with the disputed domain name “to phish private data from individuals interested in the faked insurance services”. Respondent has not sought to controvert these allegations.

Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name appears to be an effort to capitalize on the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark, in order to attract users to the site and potentially gather their contact information. This is being done without Complainant’s permission. Respondent offers no explanation for such registration and use. This satisfies the requirements of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). See, e.g., (“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. … Respondent was likely deliberately trying to create confusion and mislead Complainants’ costumers for commercial gain in an unlawful way.”); Allianz SE v. Harryson Trey,WIPO Case No. D2021-1309 (“[T]he Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and used for the purpose of taking advantage of Complainant’s reputation and Complainant’s Mark. Given Complainant’s extensive and long-standing reputation in Complainant’s Mark and the failure to try and explain why he registered and used the Domain Name, the Panel finds that Respondent’s conduct amounts to bad faith under the Policy.”); Allianz SE v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Arinze Obiakor, SystemGram Communications Limited,WIPO Case No. D2021-1562 (finding bad faith due to registration by an unaffiliated entity of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a widely-known trademark, combining the trademark with a geographic descriptor in the disputed domain name, and use of the disputed domain name in connection with phishing); Allianz Australia Insurance Limited and Allianz SE v. peter brown,WIPO Case No. D2021-1405 (“It seems to this Panel that there is no basis to conceive a legitimate use of the disputed domain name by Respondent. In reaching that conclusion, this Panel has taken into account, in addition to the circumstances mentioned above, the following: (i) Complainants are well-established companies, (ii) Respondent is using Complainants’ mark at the disputed domain name (albeit coupled with just an irrelevant addition which, in the case at hand, may be indicative of Australia, a country where Complainants have a business presence) without Complainants’ authorization, (iii) the risk of implied affiliation of the disputed domain name with Complainants and the ALLIANZ mark, (iv) Respondent’s use of a privacy service to hide its name and contact details, and (v) Respondent’s failure to appear in this proceeding. In sum, the overall evidence indicates that Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name was deliberate for its confusing similarity with, and with the likely intention to benefit from the reputation and goodwill of, Complainants and their ALLIANZ mark, which denotes bad faith.”); WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4 (use of a domain name for phishing or identity theft may constitute bad faith).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the record supports a conclusion that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, and that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied.

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 be transferred to Complainant.

Bradley A. Slutsky
Sole Panelist
Date: December 10, 2021

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy