À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

ERGO Versicherungsgruppe AG v. Bartolomeo Grimaldi

Case No. D2011-0572

1. The Parties

Complainant is ERGO Versicherungsgruppe AG of Dusseldorf, Germany, represented by Studio Legale De Simone & Partners, Italy.

Respondent is Bartolomeo Grimaldi of Avellino, Italy.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <ergoinsurance.org> is registered with Tucows Inc.(the “Registrar’’).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 30, 2011. On March 30, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 30, 2011, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 13, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 3, 2011. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on May 4, 2011.

The Center appointed Nicolas Ulmer as the sole panelist in this matter on May 13, 2011. 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

Complainant is a financial and insurance company incorporated in Germany; according to the Complaint Complainant has representations in more than thirty countries in Europe and Asia. Complainant has, from at least 2003 registered a European trade and service mark for ERGO INSURANCE GROUP in connection with classes 35 and 36 (insurance), evidence of which is attached to the Complaint. The Complaint also asserts that Complainant is the holder of other trademarks incorporating ERGO, as well as numerous domain names incorporated the term “ergo”.

The Respondent is an individual apparently residing in Italy.

The disputed domain name was registered in May 2010.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trade and service marks, as it contains the entirety of the term “ergo”, and that this confusion is not palliated by the addition of the descriptive word “insurance” or the suffix “org.”

Complainant further states that it has never authorized, licensed nor permitted the use of its marks by Respondent, who is not known by the name “Ergo”, and that a search of trademark registers in numerous countries reveals no registered rights of Respondent in the term “ergo”. Further, the disputed domain name has been used by Respondent to attract consumers to his own insurance services. Complainant adds that it has filed a criminal complaint against Respondent in Italy due to his fraudulent use of Complainant’s mark, and that it is clear that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to pass himself off as an affiliated company of the Complainant. Complainant thereupon alleges that Respondent cannot assert legitimate use within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.

Complainant asserts that the above facts also demonstrate bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name, as it is clear that Respondent registered and maintained the disputed domain name in order misleadingly to target Complainant’s customers for commercial gain. Respondent’s failure to respond to the March 18, 2011 Italian-language email communication demand by Complainant’s lawyers to transfer the disputed domain name is cited as further evidence of Respondent’s mala fides.

Complainant asks that the disputed domain name be transferred to it.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The dispute domain name contains the trademarked term ERGO, together with the word “insurance”, which is also part of Complainant’s company name (‘’versicherung”, is German for “insurance”) and business. Thus the combination of the two heightens confusion and similarity with Complainant’s mark and business. The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is met by the Complaint.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent appears not to be known by the term “ergo” and Complainant has submitted clear declarations that it has never accorded Respondent any rights in its name or mark. In the circumstances, and in the absence of any reply or explanation from Respondent, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met its burden under the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The registration and subsequent use of the disputed domain name incorporating both the trademarked term ERGO and the word “insurance” is not here compatible with good faith, and there is no evidence or indicia in the case record that it would indicate a good faith purpose on the part of Respondent in undertaking such registration and use in 2010. In particular, and given that Respondent appears to have been operating in the insurance business, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s allegation that it is not conceivable that Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the same. Although the disputed domain name is apparently presently dormant, Complainant has submitted evidence of its prior use by Respondent for insurance business purposes and convincingly alleged that this can only have been done with the purpose of deviating potential customers of Complainant to the disputed domain name site for Respondent’s commercial gain.

Accordingly the Panel finds both bad faith registration and use with the meaning of 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 <ergoinsurance.org> be transferred to Complainant.

Nicolas Ulmer
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 16, 2011

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