ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Swiss Re Ltd v. aws husham ali Case No. D2024-4621 1. The Parties The Complainant is Swiss Re Ltd, Switzerland, represented by TIMES Attorneys, Switzerland. The Respondent is aws husham ali, Switzerland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 11, 2024. On November 11, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 12, 2024, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 12, 2024, 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 November 14, 2024. 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 November 18, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 8, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 9, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed Philippe Gilliéron as the sole panelist in this matter on December 19, 2024. 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 The Complainant is a global and leading wholesale provider of reinsurance, insurance, and financial services. Founded in Zurich, Switzerland, in 1863, the Complainant serves clients through a network of over 60 offices globally. The Complainant's group was in the last few years the second-largest and is currently the largest reinsurer in the world. The Complainant holds an important trademarks’ portfolio consisting in all or in part of the term Swiss Re on a worldwide basis, including the following trademarks: - Swiss combined trademark n° 658419, that was registered in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, and 42 with a priority date as of December 18, 2013, registered on May 12, 2014. - Int. Reg. n° 1223592, that was registered in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, and 42, based upon the above Swiss trademark, registered on December 10, 2019. - Swiss word trademark n° 717011, that was registered in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, and 42 with a priority date as of July 26, 2010, registered on June 1, 2018. - Int. Reg. n° 1067014, that was registered in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, and 42, based upon the above Swiss trademark, registered on January 3, 2022. On December 26, 2022, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The domain does not lead to any active website but has active Mail Exchange (“MX”) records that may be used to send emails with an “@myswissre.com” address. On September 26, 2024, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent, inviting the latter to deactivate the disputed domain name. Notwithstanding several reminders, the Respondent did not respond. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks as it entirely incorporates the terms “Swiss” and “Re”, and that the mere addition of a term like “my” does not exclude the resulting likelihood of confusion. The Complainant then affirms that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks and the Complainant has no relation whatsoever with the Respondent. The Complainant finally is of the view that, taking into account the Complainant’s well-known character, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The setting of MX records may be used to send fraudulent emails with an “@myswissre.com” email address and mislead users.
page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “[…] 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”. Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the 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 is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the 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 It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The addition of the term “my” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although 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 difficult 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.
page 4 Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Complainant’s trademark enjoys a worldwide reputation and amounts to a well-known trademark, so that the Respondent was obviously aware of its existence when he purposefully decided to register the disputed domain name which, as a result, took place in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. While the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, MX records have been set which may be used to enable the sending of emails arguably using an “@myswissre.com” format (which the Panel considers inherently deceptive) so as to mislead users into having them believe that these emails would originate from the Complainant likely for phishing or fraudulent purposes. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 be transferred to the Complainant. /Philippe Gilliéron/ Philippe Gilliéron Sole Panelist Date: January 2, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy