WIPO Domain Name Decision DEU2019-0016 for leasing-allianz.eu

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Allianz SE v. George Mullan, Lease Case No. DEU2019-0016 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Allianz SE, Germany, internally-represented.

The Respondent is George Mullan, Lease, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name, Registry and Registrar

The Registry of the disputed domain name is the European Registry for Internet Domains (“EURid” or the “Registry”). The Registrar of the disputed domain name is PDR Ltd. 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 5, 2019. On November 6, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registry a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 8, 2019, the Registry 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 November 12, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registry, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 13, 2019.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “ADR Rules”) and the World Intellectual Property Organization Supplemental Rules for .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(2), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 15, 2019. In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(3), the due date for Response was December 27, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 3, 2020.

The Center appointed Christiane Féral-Schuhl as the sole panelist in this matter on January 17, 2020. 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 ADR Rules, Paragraph B(5). 4. Factual Background

The Complainant is Allianz SE, which presents itself as the ultimate parent company of one of the oldest and largest international insurance and financial services groups in the world.

The first company of the group was founded in 1890 in Germany and named Allianz Versicherungs-AG. Today, the Allianz Group is one of the leading integrated financial services providers worldwide, with approximately 142,000 employees and 92 million customers in more than 70 countries.

The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks, including:

- The International word trademark ALLIANZ No. 447004, registered on September 12, 1979, in class 36;

- The International figurative trademark ALLIANZ No. 714618, registered on May 4, 1999, in classes 16, 35 and 36;

- The International figurative trademark ALLIANZ No. 713841, registered on May 3, 1999, in classes 16, 35 and 36;

- The German word trademark ALLIANZ No. 987481, registered on July 11, 1979, in class 36;

- The German figurative trademark ALLIANZ No. 39927827, registered on July 16, 1999 in classes 1 to 32, 35 and 37 to 45;

- The European Union word trademark ALLIANZ No. 000013656, registered on July 22, 2002 in classes 16, 35 and 36;

- The European Union figurative trademark ALLIANZ No. 002981298, registered on April 5, 2004 in classes 16, 35 and 36.

The Allianz Group also registered several domain names in the name of Allianz Technology SE, which is the German IT affiliate company of the Complainant, or the local subsidiary of the Complainant, such as:

- ;
- ;
- ;
- ;
- ;
- .

The disputed domain name was registered on September 11, 2019. At the time of filing the Complaint, it resolved to a page containing the ALLIANZ trademark and logo in order to propose car leasing and, at the time of the decision, led to an error page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(1)(b), the legal and factual elements on which the Complainant relies are set out below.

First of all, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to prior trademarks of the Complainant, since it wholly incorporates the ALLIANZ trademark, with addition of the term “leasing”.

The Complainant considers that, given the fact that the Allianz Group is one of the largest providers of all kind of financial services worldwide, in particular insurance and asset management services, the use of the term “leasing” for services such as car loan and insurance deludes potential customers into thinking that the Respondent is part of the Allianz Group.

Secondly, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, since the Respondent has never received a license or any other form of authorization or consent from the Complainant to make use of the ALLIANZ trademark.

The Complainant also underlines that, before the notification of the dispute, the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

Finally, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith.

The Complainant argues that since the ALLIANZ trademark is very well-known in many countries all over the world, especially with regard to insurance and financial affairs, it cannot be reasonably argued that the Respondent could not have been unaware of the ALLIANZ trademark when registering the disputed domain name.

The Complainant considers that it is emphasized by the fact that, at the time of the Complaint, the disputed domain name led to a page containing the ALLIANZ trademark and logo, and thinks that the Respondent hoped to capitalise on the Complainant’s reputation. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph B(11)(d) of the ADR Rules provides that the Panel shall issue a decision granting the remedies requested by the Complainant in the event that the Complainant proves the following three elements:

(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and/or Community law and; either

(ii) The domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or

(iii) The domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and/or Community law

According to the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i), the Complainant shall prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and/or Community law.

First of all, the Panel finds that the Complainant has provided evidence that it has rights on the ALLIANZ trademark.

Then, the Panel notices that the disputed domain name is composed of (i) the whole ALLIANZ trademark, to which have been added a hyphen and the term “leasing”, and (ii) the “.eu” suffix.

The Panel wishes to remind that according to ADR panels, the panel’s review consists of a comparison between the disputed domain name and the name for which a right is recognized or established by national and/or Community law, the “.eu” suffix should be disregarded for assessing identity or confusing similarity, as well as the use of a hyphen between words (see sections 1.7 and 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”))1.

Moreover, it is established according to the consensus view of the ADR panels that domain names which include a name for which a right is recognized or established by national and/or Community law combined with descriptive or dictionary terms are confusingly similar to that name (see section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

Regarding the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that it wholly incorporates the ALLIANZ trademark, to which has been added the term “leasing”, which does not prevent confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the ALLIANZ trademark.

Therefore, the Panel holds that the Complainant has established the first element of Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

According to the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(ii), the Complainant shall demonstrate that the disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The ADR Rules, Paragraph B(11)(e), outlines circumstances that if found by the Panel to be proved shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

These circumstances are:

(1) prior to any notice of the dispute, the Respondent has used the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with the offering of goods or services or has made demonstrable preparation to do so;

(2) the Respondent, being an undertaking, organisation or natural person, has been commonly known by the domain name, even in the absence of a right recognised or established by national and/or European Union law;

(3) the Respondent is making a legitimate and non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent to mislead consumers or harm the reputation of a name in which a right is recognised or established by national law and/or European Union law.

According to prior ADR panel decisions, concerning the burden of proof regarding a lack of rights or legitimate interests, the complainant only needs to establish a prima facie case and then, the onus shifts to the respondent to rebut the assertion that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests (see section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

Here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.

Moreover, at the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a page containing the ALLIANZ trademark and logo in order to propose car leasing, whereas the Complainant had never authorized the Respondent to do so, neither did the Allianz Group, which does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate and noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

Therefore, the Panel considers that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

According to the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(iii), the Complainant shall prove that the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

Thus, Paragraph B(11)(f) provides that any one of the following nonexclusive scenarios constitutes evidence of a respondent’s bad faith:

(1) Circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the holder of a name, in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and/or European Union law, or to a public body; or

(2) The domain name has been registered in order to prevent the holder of such a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and/or European Union law, or a public body, from reflecting this name in a corresponding domain name, provided that:

(i) the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(ii) the domain name has not been used in a relevant way for at least two years from the date of registration; or

(iii) there are circumstances where, at the time the ADR Proceeding was initiated, the Respondent has declared its intention to use the domain name, in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and/or European Union law or which corresponds to the name of a public body, in a relevant way but failed to do so within six months of the day on which the ADR Proceeding was initiated;

(3) the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the professional activities of a competitor; or

(4) the domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users, for commercial gain to the Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name on which a right is recognised or established, by national and/or European Union law, or it is a name of a public body, such likelihood arising as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location of the Respondent; or

(5) the domain name is a personal name for which no demonstrable link exists between the Respondent and the domain name registered.

First of all, the Panel finds that it is established that the Complainant’s trademarks were registered before the registration of the disputed domain name.

Moreover, the Panel finds that the Respondent knew, or should have known, that its registration would be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, given the reputation of the Complainant and the fact that the disputed domain name reproduces the ALLIANZ trademark in its entirety to which has been added the term “leasing” that is linked to the Complainant’s insurance and financial activities.

Furthermore, the fact that at the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a page containing the ALLIANZ trademark and logo (in order to offer car leasing, which is an activity that is close to the Complainant’s ones) tends to prove that the disputed domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users, for commercial gain to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark.

Consequently, in view of all the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith according to ADR Rules, Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(iii). 7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraph B(11) of the ADR Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant2.

Christiane Féral-Schuhl
Sole Panelist
Date: March 4, 2020

1 Considering the substantive similarities between the ADR Rules and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), the Panel also refers to UDRP case law and analysis, where appropriate.

2 The remedy sought is transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant. As the Complainant is established in Germany, it satisfies the general eligibility criteria for registration of the Domain Name set out in article 20 of the Regulation (EC) No. 2019/517.

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy