The Complainant is Allianz SE, Germany, represented internally.
The Respondent is Mohammed Jameel Khan, Switzerland.
The disputed domain name <allianz-st.com> is registered with Wix.com Ltd. (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 14, 2021. On April 14, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 18, 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 April 19, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Center received an email communication from the Respondent on April 23, 2021. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 26, 2021.
The Registrar also indicated that the language of the Registration Agreement was French. The Complaint was filed in English. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 19, 2021, inviting the Complainant to provide sufficient evidence of an agreement between the Parties for English to be the language of proceeding, a Complaint translated into French, or a request for English to be the language of proceedings. The Center also invited the Respondent to submit comments. On April 20, 2021, the Respondent requested the language of proceedings to be French. The Complainant filed a request for English to be the language of proceedings on April 26, 2021.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 in both French and English, and the proceedings commenced on May 19, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 12, 2021. The Center received email communications from the Respondent on May 31, 2021 and June 5, 2021. The Center notified the commencement of Panel appointment process on June 15, 2021.
The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on June 20, 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.
Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to the Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a formal response from the Respondent.
The Complainant is Allianz SE, a German company operating in the field of insurance and financial services and owning several trademark registrations for ALLIANZ, among which the following ones:
- International Trademark Registration No. 447004 for ALLIANZ, registered on September 12, 1979 and also extended to Switzerland;
- European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 000013656 for ALLIANZ, registered on July 22, 2002.
The Complainant also operates on the Internet and owns several domain names for ALLIANZ, among which “www.allianz.com”, “www.allianz.de” and “www.allianz.ch”.
The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above.
According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on February 14, 2021, and redirects to a webpage offering trading services.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <allianz-st.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark ALLIANZ, as the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark.
Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademark within the disputed domain name, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor is it making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark ALLIANZ is distinctive and internationally known. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users and to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has made no formal reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn (see, e.g., Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0441; Microsoft Corporation v. Freak Films Oy, WIPO Case No. D2003-0109; SSL INTERNATIONAL PLC v. MARK FREEMAN, WIPO Case No. D2000-1080; ALTAVISTA COMPANY v. GRANDTOTAL FINANCES LIMITED et. al., WIPO Case No. D2000-0848; and Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Nord Europe v. Marketing Total S.A., WIPO Case No. D2007-0288).
In this case, the Respondent submitted two informal and identical email communications in French on April 26 and June 5, 2021. In his email, the Respondent stated the following:
“Bonjour,
Je me permets de vous soumettre mes arguments concernant mon nom de domaine dans lequel le mot;
“Allianz” apparait;
- le mot Allianz est un mot allemand dont la traduction en française signifie “alliance, union, accord” donc de droit 100% public
- Selon la loi vous n’êtes pas propriétaire d’un mot et vous ne pouvez pas le protéger tout comme les mots suivants; sun, sky, cloud ...
- l’activité exercée au sein de mon activité n’a aucun lien avec les assurances, de près ou de loin
- Si vous souhaitiez protéger le nom de domaine “allianz-st” il fallait le faire avant
- cependant je suis prêt à vous le vendre pour 1 million (CHF).
Meilleures salutations.”
According to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel has decided that the language of the proceeding will be English. The language of the Registration Agreement is French, however, the Panel considers appropriate to conduct the proceeding in a language other than that of the Registration Agreement, since the only language of the website at the disputed domain name is English and the Respondent, in his informal reply, is making examples of generic words (sun, sky, cloud ...) using the English language: therefore, the request to translate the Complaint into French would be an unfair burden as well as an unnecessary delay for the Complainant. Furthermore, the Respondent received the case-related communications from the Center both in French and English and the Panel has taken into consideration the informal emails in French.. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(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.
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark ALLIANZ both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name <allianz-st.com> is confusingly similar to the trademark ALLIANZ.
Regarding the addition of the hyphen followed by the letters “st”, the Panel notes that it is now well established that the addition of descriptive terms or letters to a domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark (see, e.g., Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Jonathan Valicenti, WIPO Case No. D2005-0037; Red Bull GmbH v. Chai Larbthanasub, WIPO Case No. D2003-0709; America Online, Inc. v. Dolphin@Heart, WIPO Case No. D2000-0713). The addition of the hyphen followed by the letters “st” does not therefore prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ALLIANZ.
It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, may be ignored when assessing the confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11).
The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
The Respondent has failed to file a formal response in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5.
The Complainant in its Complaint, and as set out above, has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It asserts that the Respondent, who is not currently associated with the Complainant in any way, is not using the disputed domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The prima facie case presented by the Complainant is enough to shift the burden of production to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not presented any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name, and the Panel is unable to establish any such rights or legitimate interests on the basis of the evidence in front of it.
In fact, the Respondent, in his informal response of June 5, 2021 that replicates exactly the text of his previous email communication of April 23, 2021, is basically stating that anybody could register as a domain name a word like “allianz” (a dictionary term meaning “alliance” in German) or like “sun, sky, cloud, …”, that his business activity is completely different from the Complainant’s insurance activity, and that in any case he would accept to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for 1 million Swiss Francs.
From the analysis of the Respondent’s informal submissions, and notably the Panel notes that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in relation with the meaning of “alliance”, “sun”, “cloud” or “sky”, but rather to offer similar services as the Complainant. The Panel is not able to find any demonstration of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name.
Moreover, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.
Based on the facts of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that “[…] for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the 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 [the Respondent has] registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) that [the 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 [the Respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) that [the Respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) that by using the domain name, [the Respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the Respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the Respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the Respondent’s] website or location”.
Regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark ALLIANZ in the field of insurance and financial services is clearly established and the Panel finds that the Respondent likely knew of the Complainant and deliberately registered the disputed domain name, especially because on the website at the disputed domain name the Respondent is offering competing trading services.
The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name is also used in bad faith since on the relevant website the Respondent is offering similar services as the Complainant, with the purpose of intentionally attempting to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the disputed domain name’s source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement.
The above suggests to the Panel that the Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain name in order to create confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Furthermore, the Panel finally finds the Respondent’s willingness to sell the disputed domain name for a price of 1 million Swiss Francs to be further evidence of bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented evidence to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the issue of whether the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied.
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 <allianz-st.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Edoardo Fano
Sole Panelist
Date: June 21, 2021