About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Allianz SE v. Matt Oki

Case No. D2020-0302

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Allianz SE, Germany, represented internally.

The Respondent is Matt Oki, Ghana.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <allianztrust.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 10, 2020. On February 10, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 11, 2020, 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 February 12, 2020, 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 amended Complaint on February 13, 2020.

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, and the proceedings commenced on February 20, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 10, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 11, 2020.

The Center appointed Ellen Shankman as the sole panelist in this matter on March 30, 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 Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The date of the Domain Name registration was confirmed by the Registrar to be June 1, 2019.

The trademark ALLIANZ serves as a house-mark of the Complainant and is protected as a registered trademark in multiple jurisdictions world-wide.

The Complainant provided evidence of multiple trademark registrations for the mark ALLIANZ including, inter alia, International Registrations No. 447004 (registered on September 12, 1979) and 714618 (registered on May 4, 1999) both for word marks logos, that predate the date of the Domain Name registration for a variety of insurance and financial affair services.

The Panel also conducted an independent search to determine that the Domain Name resolves to a page with a “404” error message, and the website currently appears to be inactive. However, the Panel also notes that the Complainant provided screen shot evidence of the website that appeared earlier that wholly incorporates the trademark of the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant is the ultimate parent company of one of the oldest and largest international insurance and financial services groups in the world. The Complaint alleges that the first company of today’s Allianz Group, Allianz Versicherungs-AG, was founded in 1890 in Berlin, Germany. In 1893 the first international branch, an office in London was opened. Since its inception, the Complainant has continuously operated under the Allianz name, and has used the ALLIANZ mark in connection with its insurance, healthcare and financial service products. The Complainant is one of the leading integrated financial services providers worldwide. With approximately 142,000 employees worldwide, the Complainant serves to approximately 92 million customers in more than 70 countries. On the insurance side, the Complainant is the market leader in the German market and has a strong international presence. The Complainant is one of the world’s largest assets managers, with third-party assets of EUR 1,436 billion under management at the end of the year 2018.

The Complaint contends that over the years, the Complainant has devoted substantial resources and efforts building goodwill in the ALLIANZ family of marks, which is used to distinguish the Complainant’s products from all other products in the same class. The Complainant directly owns exclusive rights in the ALLIANZ mark and derivatives thereof in jurisdictions around the world. Under the ALLIANZ mark, the Complainant offers a wide range of financial, insurance and assistance services. ALLIANZ is a distinctive and well-known mark used by the Complainant in connection with its several businesses for well over 100 years. In its Best Global Brands 2019 study, the international marketing agency Interbrand ranked ALLIANZ of the Complainant as No. 43 with a value of USD 12,078 million.

The Complaint argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. The Internet user will recognize the famous corporate name and trademark of the Complainant in the Domain Name. Through the Domain Name, customers expect to reach one of the websites belonging to the Complainant or one of its subsidiaries. The same applies if a customer receives email correspondence under this Domain Name. The use of the name “Allianz”, the clear impression is made that the Domain Name refers to the renowned ALLIANZ mark and would mislead customers and it increases the danger of confusion and exploitation. As the Complainant is one of the largest providers of all kind of financial services worldwide, in particular insurance, assets management and assistance services. The use of the Domain Name <allianztrust.com> for banking services implies that the Respondent belongs to Allianz Group and deludes potential customers into thinking that the Respondent is part of the Allianz Group. Further, the Respondent uses the Domain Name for email that could fraudulently be used for phishing.

To summarize the Complaint, the Complainant is the owner of multiple registrations for the trademark ALLIANZ, in respect of a financial and insurance goods and services. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark owned by the Complainant. The addition of the generic word “trust” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity – and if anything enhances it. Therefore, the Domain Name could be considered virtually identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. That continued use of the Domain Name would lead to a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent by the Complainant, especially for competing goods and services. Thus, the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith registration and use under the Policy, and the Complainant requests transfer of the Domain Name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

The burden for the Complainant under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is to prove:

(i) that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfactorily proven that it has registered trademark rights for ALLIANZ.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Further, the Panel finds that the mere addition of the dictionary and/or descriptive term “trust” to the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. See Pfizer Inc. v. Asia Ventures, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005-0256. See also Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2001-0110, stating “The incorporation of a Complainant’s well-known trademark in the registered Domain Name is considered sufficient to find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.”

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant contends that every connection with the Domain Name <allianztrust.com> means a damage of the valuable image of the Complainant and poses a threat to individuals that are potentially interested in a business relationship for banking services with the Complainant.

The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the ALLIANZ mark or the goodwill the Complainant has developed in its mark. To the contrary, Respondent holds no trademark registrations for any ALLIANZ mark and has never received a license or any other form of authorization or consent from the Complainant to make use of the ALLIANZ mark. Therefore, Respondent has no right to or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.

The Complainant argues that 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 or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Also, before having been notified of this dispute, the Respondent did not use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods services, Policy paragraph 4(c)(i).

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy in turn identifies three means through which a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. Although the complainant bears the ultimate burden of establishing all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, UDRP panels have recognized that this could result in the often-impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is primarily, if not exclusively, within the knowledge of the respondent. Thus, the consensus view is that paragraph 4(c) shifts the burden of production to the respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name <allianztrust.com> and that it is not related to or affiliated in any way with the Complainant, nor has the Complainant authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case, which was not refuted, and that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

Therefore, the Complainant has satisfied the second requirement that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant contends that the Respondent intentionally attempted, by using the Domain Name, to convince Internet users to act as being instructed (to reveal private information and data) by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Domain Name. The Panel agrees.

It is obvious that the Respondent is exploiting the fact that the Internet users are hoping to access a website that or to communicate with someone who belongs to Complainant’s group of companies. The Respondent is thus trading on the fame of the Complainant’s mark, which is connected in public perception with insurance and financial services. Moreover, the Respondent is exploiting with his website the good name of the Complainant. It is apparent that he is a “free-rider” and fraudster trying to take unfair advantage of the well-known trademark of the Complainant.

The Panel finds that the ALLIANZ trademark is well-known with regard to insurance and financial affairs. It cannot be reasonably argued that the Respondent could have been unaware of the trademark when registering the Domain Name. The Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contention that it is most unlikely that he just happened to unintentionally select the Complainant’s distinctive trademark. He clearly sought to register the Domain Name because of its association with the Complainant and hoped to capitalize on the Complainant’s reputation.

Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and reputation, the Panel agrees with the Complainant’s claims that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark ALLIANZ and uses it for the purpose of misleading and diverting Internet traffic and for fraudulent attempts to impersonate the Complainant for possible phishing.

Given the evidence of the Complainant’s prior rights in the trademark, the timing of the registration of the Domain Name with apparent full knowledge of the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the third requirement that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith, under paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Domain Name <allianztrust.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Ellen B. Shankman
Sole Panelist
Date: April 3, 2020

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/