The Complainant is Allianz SE, Germany, internally represented.
The Respondent is Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / git bytes, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 7, 2021. On June 7, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 7, 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 June 8, 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 June 9, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .IO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for .IO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .IO 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 July 1, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 21, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 23, 2021. The Center appointed Christian Gassauer-Fleissner as the sole panelist in this matter on August 23, 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 Complainants is Allianz SE. Allianz SE is a German multinational financial services company headquartered in Munich, Germany. It is the holding company of the Allianz Group, one of the oldest and largest international insurance and financial services Groups in the world. The Allianz Group, founded in 1890, and its subsidiary companies count over 147,000 employees and 85 million customers in more than 70 countries. Allianz SE has a strong international presence. Since its inception, Allianz SE has continuously operated under the sign ALLIANZ to identify insurance, healthcare, and financial services. Complainant alleges it has spent substantial resources to build its trade mark portfolio over the years, so that it owns exclusive rights in the ALLIANZ trade mark and its variations in different jurisdictions around the world making it a distinctive and well-known sign. Below are some examples of Complainants’ trade mark registrations: Trade Mark Country/Register Registration No. Registration Date ALLIANZ International Registration 447004 September 12, 1979 ALLIANZ International Registration 714618 May 4, 1999 ALLIANZ and Design International Registration 713841 May 3, 1999 ALLIANZ Germany 987481 July 11, 1979 ALLIANZ Germany 39927827 July 16, 1999 ALLIANZ European Union 000013656 July 22, 2002 ALLIANZ and Design European Union 002981298 April 5, 2004 In addition, the name “allianz” is incorporated in some domain names owned by the Complainant or its affiliates. Complainant’s Domain Name Owner Allianz Technology SE, Germany Allianz Technology SE, Germany Allianz Technology SE, Germany Allianz Vie, France Allianz Global Investors, USA Allianz Technology SE, Germany The disputed domain name was registered on May 14, 2021 – many years after the registration of the Complainants’ trade names and trade marks listed above. By the time of this decision, the disputed domain name was resolving to an inactive website (redirection to default webpage: “www.allianzfund.io/cgi-sys/defaultwebpage.cgi”). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant According to the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website promoting faked financial services under the name “Allianzfund” to phish private data from users. With the beginning of the enforcement of rights before various courts by the Complainant the disputed domain was set to inactive. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark as it wholly contains the ALLIANZ trade mark with the addition of the word “fund”. As Complainant is one of the largest providers of financial services worldwide, the use of the disputed domain name for financial services implies that the Respondent is associated with the Complainant. The Complainant states that the strong reputation and highly distinctive character of the Complainant’s trade mark has been confirmed by different authorities including UDRP and Oberlandesgericht München (Higher Regional Court of Munich), and that the Complainant’s trade mark is well-known in many countries worldwide, especially with regard to insurance and financial affairs. Because of this strong reputation, it cannot be reasonably argued that the Respondent could have been unaware of the trade mark when it registered the disputed domain name. Respondent sought to register the disputed domain name because of its association with the Complainant. Therefore, the Respondent acted in bad faith when registering the disputed domain name. Complainant claims that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the ALLIANZ trade mark or the goodwill the Complainant has developed in its mark. The Respondent’s activities do not correspond to any of the circumstances set forth in the Policy, paragraph 4(c) that would evidence any rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In view of the close similarity of the requirements of the Policy and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), therefore, the Panel will draw on the principles established under the UDRP as appropriate. Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires that the Panel’s decision be made “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”. It has been a consensus view in previous UDRP decisions that a respondent’s default (i.e., failure to submit a response) would not by itself mean that the Complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true (see section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)). A complainant must evidence each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to succeed on the complaint, namely that: (A) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant has rights, (B) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and (C) the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trade mark rights. First, proof of use of a trade mark or service mark must be provided by the Complainant for this purpose. Complainant is a long-standing, large international insurance and financial services company based in Germany. It has continuously operated under the “Allianz” name, is registered as the owner of several trade marks and domain names consisting of or including the word “allianz”. Suitable evidence was submitted as proof. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that it has rights in the ALLIANZ trade mark. The disputed domain name is a combination of the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trade mark and the word element “fund”. The Panel finds that the inclusion of “fund” does not prevent the Complainant’s trade mark from being recognizable in the disputed domain name (see section 1.8 of WIPO Overview 3.0) which states that “where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The nature of such additional term(s) may however bear on assessment of the second and third elements”. For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark, and the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The second element the Complainant must prove is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Regarding the second element of the Policy, section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, states, “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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element”. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trade mark, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, nor used it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Further, the Respondent has not attempted to justify why the disputed domain name was registered. The evidence submitted by the Complainant indicates that, prior to the initiation of the dispute, the disputed domain name was linked to a website that sought to impersonate the Complainant and/or pass off on the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trade mark by offering fake financial services. Such misleading use of the disputed domain name is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, which has not been rebutted by the Respondent. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the second element of the Policy in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith The third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant demonstrate that Respondent registered or is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1, states, “bad faith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark”. Considering the reputation and public presence of the Complainant, it does not seem convincing that the respondent had no knowledge of the trade mark. In addition, the Panel notes Complainant’s business interests in the financial services industry and finds that the addition of the word “fund” to Allianz suggests, wrongly, that there is a connection between the Respondent and the Complainant. Further, in light of the lack of any rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by the Respondent and in the absence of any conceivable good faith use, the Panel finds from the present circumstances that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark. The fact that the disputed domain name at the time of this decision resolves to an inactive website does not detract from this view because of the evidence provided by the Complainant, which shows the former usage as a promotion site for fake financial services. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith and that the third element of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is fulfilled. 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 Christian Gassauer-Fleissner
Sole Panelist
Date: September 3, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy