The Complainant is Allianz SE of Munich, Germany.
The Respondent is Vitohessi Evenasse Benoit of Cotonou, Benin.
The disputed domain name <allianzbk.com> is registered with OVH (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 18, 2017. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 19, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On the same day, the Center notified the Parties in both English and French that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name was French. On January 23, 2017, the Complainant requested for English to be the language of the proceeding, to which the Respondent did not reply.
The Center verified that 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 January 30, 2017. On the same day, the Center received an email form the Respondent. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 19, 2017. The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s contentions.
The Center appointed Philippe Gilliéron as the sole panelist in this matter on March 3, 2017. 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.
The Complainant is the parent company of one of the largest international insurance and financial services groups in the world, that was founded in 1890 in Berlin. Since its inception, the Complainant has always operated under the Allianz name. It now counts around 142,500 employees worldwide and serves approximately 85 million customers in more than 70 countries. Its total revenues in 2015 amounted to EUR 125.19 billion.
The Complainant owns numerous trademarks on a worldwide basis consisting in all or in part of the term ALLIANZ, the first one having been registered on 1979. In its Best Global Brands 2016 study, the international marketing agency Interbrand ranked ALLIANZ as No. 51 with a value of USD 9,528 million.
The Allianz Group also owns several domain names consisting of its ALLIANZ trademark, all registered in the name of Allianz Managed Operations and Services SE, the German IT affiliate company of Allianz SE, such as <allianz.de>, <allianz.com>, <allianz.us> or <allianz.fr>.
The famous character of the ALLIANZ trademark has been acknowledged by different authorities, such as the Oberlandesgericht of Munich or the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market.
The Complainant has already successfully defended its ALLIANZ trademarks in UDRP proceedings related to the following domain names such as, among others: <allianzfinance.com> (Allianz SE v. Well Domains are either owned by us or Client Managed, WIPO Case No. D2008-0535), as well as <allianz-re.com> (Allianz SE v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., WIPO Case No. D2015-2056).
On December 3, 2016, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <allianzbk.com> to then contact individuals via Facebook, so as to offer to them financial services. The Respondent appears to own several further domain names with the purpose to offer financial services.
The Complainant has been contacted by several users, having received advertising material from <allianzbk.com>, who were wondering whether the disputed domain name belonged to the Allianz Group.
On January 30, 2017, the Respondent sent an email to the Center in which the Respondent argued that it had only registered the disputed domain name for training purposes and was happy to free the name, however adding that it would be pleased to sell the domain name.
The Complainant first argues that the disputed domain name <allianzbk.com> is confusingly similar to its ALLIANZ trademark, a famous trademark entirely incorporated into the disputed domain name whose abbreviation “bk” refers to the full name “Allianz Bank”, under which the provider of the disputed domain name offers banking services to potential customers, leading customers to wrongfully believe that the disputed domain name would be part of the Allianz Group, as demonstrated by several emails sent by customers wondering whether <allianzbk.com> would be affiliated with the Complainant.
The Complainant then affirms that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, does not own any “allianz” trademark and has never been authorized by the Complainant to use the ALLIANZ trademark in any way. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name would be used for phishing purposes in a fraudulent way, merely offering users the possibility to send a text message to a dubious unknown recipient.
The Complainant finally asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Considering the famous character of the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark, it cannot be reasonably argued that the Respondent could have been unaware of the trademark when registering the disputed domain name. Based upon the above explanations, the Complainant considers the disputed domain name to be registered and used in bad faith.
Set aside the communication mentioned above and sent to the Center on January 30, 2017, the Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s contentions.
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 registered by the Respondent 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.
Prior to turning to the merits of the case, the Panel however has to address a formal issue:
On January 19, 2017, the Center sent an email to the Complainant informing it that the language of the Registration Agreement in this case is French and that the Complaint was filed in English. As a result, the Center invited the Complainant to provide at least one of the following: (1) satisfactory evidence of an agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the proceedings should be in French; or (2) submit the Complaint translated into French; or (3) submit a request for English to be the language of the administrative proceedings. The Respondent was further invited to comment on the language of the proceeding.
On January 23, 2017, the Complainant submitted a request for English to be the language of the administrative proceeding, to which the Respondent did not oppose.
Considering that the website originally affiliated to the disputed domain name was entirely in English and that the Respondent had ample opportunity to oppose the proceeding being held in English if it wanted to do so, the Panel sees no reason to oppose the use of English as the language of the proceeding, all the more considering that the sole communication sent by the Respondent to the Center was in English, which demonstrates a sufficient command of English for the Respondent to understand the Complaint.
Considering the above, the Panel accepts the Complaint in English and shall render its decision in English.
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant has to prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant holds numerous word trademarks throughout the world consisting of the word ALLIANZ, whose well known character is undoubtful, as acknowledged by several Court decisions.
UDRP panels widely agree that incorporating a trademark into a domain name can be sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark for purpose of the Policy (see, e.g., Uniroyal Engineered Products, Inc. v. Nauga Network Services, WIPO Case No. D2000-0503; Thaigem Global Marketing Limited v. Sanchai Aree, WIPO Case No. D2002-0358; and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Relish Entreprises, WIPO Case No. D2007-1629). This is all the more true when the inserted trademark, a well known one, consists of the dominant part of the disputed domain name, and that the added elements are merely descriptive.
Such happens to be the case. The applicable generic Top-Level Domain name (“gTLD”), in the present case “.com”, is usually disregarded under the confusing similarity test and the addition of a descriptive term such as “bk” referring in a fairly obvious manner for users as “bank” does not exclude the confusing similarity (see, among others: Playboy Entreprises International, Inc. v. Zeynel Demirtas, WIPO Case No. D2007-0768; Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Evezon Co. Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2000-0437; Dell Computer Corporation v. MTO C.A. and Diabetes Education Long Life, WIPO Case No. D2002-0363). To the contrary, such addition leads users to believe that the disputed domain name would be affiliated to the Allianz Group.
As a result, the Panel considers paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to be satisfied.
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii), the Complainant has to demonstrate that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
As the panel stated in Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624, demonstrating that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name “would require complainant to prove a negative, a difficult, if not impossible, task.” Thus, in that decision, the panel opined that “[w]here a complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, it is incumbent upon the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion.” Following that decision, subsequent UDRP panels developed a consensual view that it is deemed sufficient for a complainant to make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. Once a prima facie case has been made, it is the respondent’s burden to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests. If it fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy (see, e.g., paragraph 2.1 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”)).
In the present case, the Complainant is the owner of numerous ALLIANZ trademarks. The Complainant has no business or other relationship with the Respondent. Additionally, the Complainant has been contacted by several users, having received advertising material from the disputed domain name, who were wondering whether the disputed domain name belonged to the Allianz Group. The Complainants thus has made a prima facie case showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
There is no doubt in the Panel’s opinion that the Respondent is neither commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. This is all the more true considering that, in its email sent to the Center on January 30, 2017, the Respondent did not rebut the Complainant’s contentions and the Respondent expressly stated that the disputed domain name had solely been registered for training purposes and that it was happy to free the name, however adding that it would be pleased to sell the disputed domain name, statements that stand in an obvious contradiction to any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
Consequently, in light of the above, the Panel considers paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy to be fulfilled>.
For a complaint to succeed, a panel must be satisfied that a domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii)).
In the present case, the Complainant is the owner of numerous ALLIANZ trademarks, which enjoy a worldwide reputation. Considering the reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks, the Respondent was obviously aware of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time it registered the disputed domain name. As a result, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
Furthermore, the Respondent’s registration of a well known trademark such as ALLIANZ is suggestive of bad faith.
Based upon the overall circumstances of the case, the Panel has no doubt that the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent to exploit the Complainant’s goodwill and attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, most likely in a fraudulent way for phishing purposes.
Consequently, the Panel is of the opinion that the disputed domain name <allianzbk.com> has been registered and is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
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 <allianzbk.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Philippe Gilliéron
Sole Panelist
Date: March 7, 2017