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


Torus Insurance Holdings Limited v. Nadezha Kokourina

Case No. D2011-2259

1. The Parties

Complainant is Torus Insurance Holdings Limited of Hamilton, Bermuda, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Graham Watt & Co LLP, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereby “United Kingdom”) .

Respondent is Nadezha Kokourina of London, United Kingdom.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <torusinvest.com> is registered with 1&1 Internet AG.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 22, 2011. On December 22, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to 1&1 Internet AG a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 23, 2011, 1&1 Internet AG transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that 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 January 11, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 31, 2012. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 2, 2012.

The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on February 14, 2012. 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 provides insurance underwriting, insurance brokerage and related services to a global client base through its European, United States of America and Bermudian based insurance subsidiaries. Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations covering services in class 36 of the Nice Classification, including provision of insurance services, insurance underwriting, reinsurance and assurance services, consultancy services relating to insurance and other related services:

- CTM Registration No. 6847495 for the trademark TORUS INSURANCE (& Device);

- CTM Registration No. 6529648 for the trademark TORUS INSURANCE;

- CTM Registration No. 8311474 for the trademark TORUS;

- United States Registration No. 3906401 for the trademark TORUS.

The disputed domain name was created on August 19, 2011. On October 3, 2011, Complainant’s counsel sent a letter to Respondent demanding transfer of the disputed domain name. Respondent did not respond to that letter.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s TORUS trademark in its entirety, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s TORUS trademark in its entirety. In this Panel’s view, the addition of the descriptive term “invest” does not add any distinctive element.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark and consequently, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

There is no evidence of Respondent’s use of or demonstrable preparation to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Nothing in the contact information for Respondent, in the publicly available WhoIs, implies that Respondent is commonly known by that name. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name resolves to generic search engines which include links to websites offering investment and other related services, which could conflict with Complainant’s activities. Complainant submitted a printout of the generic webpage located at the disputed domain name, which lists three links. As of the date of this Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a generic temporary holding webpage that does not indicate any business or other activities of Respondent. The website does display one link to a company that provides company research services that could be used for investment purposes.

The Panel finds that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and therefore, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is met.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that the links to Respondent’s website located at the disputed domain name indicate that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website.

In addition, Complainant contends that Respondent ignored Complainant’s request to transfer the disputed domain name. Such conduct, particularly in view of Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, has been held to constitute bad faith.

The Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, and consequently, paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is met.

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 <torusinvest.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Lynda J. Zadra-Symes
Sole Panelist
Dated: March 2, 2012