Complainant is Allianz SE, Germany, represented internally.
Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States of America (“United States”) / a, Cd Ab, United States.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 29, 2021. On November 29, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 29, 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 November 30, 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 December 1, 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 December 10, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 30, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 4, 2022.
The Center appointed Yijun Tian as the sole panelist in this matter on January 14, 2022. 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 A. ComplainantComplainant is a company incorporated in Germany. Founded in 1890, Complainant is one of the oldest and largest international insurance and financial services groups in the world. Its subsidiary companies count over 147,000 employees and 100 million customers in more than 70 countries.
Complainant is the exclusive owner of numerous ALLIANZ trademarks worldwide, including the German Trademark Registration No. 987481, registered on July 11, 1979, the European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 000013656, registered on July 22, 2002, and the International Trademark Reg. No. 447004, registered on September 12, 1979. Complainant also registered numerous domain names which contain the ALLIANZ trademark, such as
The disputed domain name
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it.
B. RespondentRespondent did not reply to Complainants’ contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsParagraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(i) the disputed domain name registered by Respondent 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.
On the basis of the evidence introduced by Complainant and in particular with regard to the content of the relevant provisions of the Policy (paragraphs 4(a)-(c)), the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ALLIANZ marks acquired through registration. The ALLIANZ marks have been registered internationally and in Germany since 1979. The disputed domain name comprises the ALLIANZ mark in its entirety. The disputed domain name only differs from Complainant’s trademark by the term “ethereum”, and the gTLD “.com”. This does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between Complainant’s registered trademark and the disputed domain name.
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name”, regardless of the addition of other terms. (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8).
Further, in relation to the gTLD, section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states: “The 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.”
Thus, the Panel finds that disregarding the term “ethereum”, as well as the gTLD “.com”, the disputed domain name is otherwise identical to the ALLIANZ mark.
The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfils the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsParagraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent 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 has 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 Complainant’s trademarks.
The overall burden of proof on this element rests with Complainant. However, it is well established by previous UDRP panel decisions that once a complainant establishes a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the burden of production shifts to respondent to rebut complainant’s contentions. If respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. (Danzas Holding AG, DHL Operations B.V. v. Ma Shikai,WIPO Case No. D2008-0441; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1, and cases cited therein).
Complainant has rights in the ALLIANZ marks internationally and in Germany since 1979, which precede Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name in 2021. According to the Complaint, founded in 1890, Complainant is one of the oldest and largest international insurance and financial services groups in the world. Its subsidiary companies count over 147,000 employees and 100 million customers in more than 70 countries.
Moreover, Respondent is not an authorized dealer of Allianz branded products or services. Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and thereby shifted the burden to Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company,WIPO Case No. D2009-0610; Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
Based on the following reasons the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:
(a) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent has not provided evidence of a legitimate use of the disputed domain name or reasons to justify the choice of the term “allianz” in the disputed domain name and in its business operation. There has been no evidence to show that Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the ALLIANZ marks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the ALLIANZ marks;
(b) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has any registered trademark rights with respect to the disputed domain name. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2021, long after the ALLIANZ marks became internationally known. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANZ marks;
(c) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. By contrast, as mentioned above, the disputed domain name has been resolved to a website featuring Complainant’s trademark and logo, replicating a similar color scheme as that used by Complainant, and allegedly offering financial products and services under the ALLIANZ mark. Currently, it resolves to a parking page displaying PPC links. It seems that Respondent made profits through the Internet traffic attracted to the websites under the disputed domain name. (See BKS Bank AG v. Jianwei Guo,WIPO Case No. D2017-1041; BASF SE v. Hong Fu Chen, Chen Hong Fu,WIPO Case No. D2017-2203.)
The Panel finds that Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel, therefore, holds that the Complaint fulfils the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithParagraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or
(ii) Respondent has registered the disputed 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 disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website 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 the website or location.
The Panel concludes that the circumstances referred to in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy are applicable to the present case and upon the evidence of these circumstances and other relevant circumstances, it is adequate to conclude that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
(a) Registered in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that Complainant has a widespread reputation in the ALLIANZ marks with regard to its products or services, as introduced above. It is not conceivable that Respondent would not have had actual notice of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel, therefore, finds that the ALLIANZ mark is not one that a trader could legitimately adopt other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra). Respondent’s awareness of Complainant is concretely reflected in the use of Complainant’s logo, color scheme, and exact trademark throughout the content at the website to which the disputed domain name resolved at the time of filing the Complaint.
Moreover, Respondent has chosen not to respond to Complainant’s allegations. According to the UDRP decision in The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra, “the failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complaint further supports an inference of bad faith”. See also Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. (This Domain is For Sale) Joshuathan Investments, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2002-0787.
Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
(b) Used in Bad Faith
As mentioned above, the disputed domain name has been resolved to a website seemingly impersonating Complainant and offering financial products and services under the ALLIANZ mark, and it currently resolves to a parking page displaying PPC links. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent is currently using the confusingly similar disputed domain name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites.
Given the reputation of the ALLIANZ marks, the Panel finds that the public is likely to be confused into thinking that the disputed domain name has a connection with Complainant, contrary to the fact. There is a strong likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website to which the disputed domain name has been resolved (Annex B to the Complaint). In other words, Respondent has, through the use of a confusingly similar disputed domain name, created a likelihood of confusion with the ALLIANZ marks. Moreover, as mentioned above, the disputed domain name also directs Internet users to a parking webpage that also includes an offer to sell the disputed domain name (containing an online page “Submit Offer”), presumably for commercial gain.
The Panel, therefore, concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and are being used by Respondent in bad faith. Such use of the disputed domain name is also disruptive in relation to the interests of Complainant.
In summary, Respondent, by choosing to register and use the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the ALLIANZ marks, intended to ride on the goodwill of this trademark in an attempt to exploit, for commercial gain, Internet users destined for Complainant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary and rebuttal from Respondent, the choice of the disputed domain name and the conduct of Respondent as far as the websites to which the disputed domain name resolves is indicative of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel, therefore, holds that the Complaint fulfils the third condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
7. DecisionFor all 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
Yijun Tian
Sole Panelist
Dated: February 5, 2022