WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Allianz Seguros S.A. and Allianz SE v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Leandro Nunes Pereira

Case No. D2016-0117

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Allianz Seguros S.A. of São Paulo, Brazil and Allianz SE of Munich, Germany, represented by Gouveia Silveira e Tannous Advogados, Brazil.

The Respondent is Perfect Privacy, LLC of Jacksonville, Florida, United States of America / Leandro Nunes Pereira of Guarulhos, Brazil.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <allianzsegurossa.com> is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on January 19, 2016. On January 20, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 20, 2016, 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 Complainants on January 25, 2016 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint on January 27, 2016.

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 3, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 23, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on February 24, 2016.

The Center appointed Rodrigo Azevedo as the sole panelist in this matter on March 3, 2016. 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 Complainants are engaged in international financial services, offering products and solutions in insurance and asset management under the trademark ALLIANZ.

The second Complainant, Allianz SE, is the holding company of the Allianz Group, comprising subsidiaries in several countries, including Brazil, where the first Complainant, its subsidiary Allianz Seguros S.A., is located.

The Complainants own several trademark applications and trademark registrations for the trademark ALLIANZ in Brazil and internationally since at least 1976.

The term "allianz" is also the characteristic element of the Complainants' trade names since their respective incorporations.

The disputed domain name was registered on October 14, 2015.

The Panel accessed the disputed domain name on March 11, 2016, when the disputed domain name was pointing to a standard webpage advertising a free website designing tool.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainants

The Complainants make the following contentions:

- The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainants have rights. It is clear that the term "allianz" in the disputed domain name <allianzsegurossa.com> is identical to the Complainants' trademarks and also to the mot vedette of their company names. The expression "allianzsegurossa" reproduces, on purpose, the complete corporate name of the first Complainant, Allianz Seguros S.A.

- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no license or other agreement with any of the Complainants authorizing him to use the trademark or trade name ALLIANZ. The WhoIs information identified the Respondent as "Perfect Privacy, LLC", which is a service provider that conceals and keeps anonymous the real identity of the domain name owner. Therefore, the Complainants were not able to identify any information implying that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or may have any rights or legitimate interests whatsoever on or in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name leads to a website that offers products and services, and so it remains clear that the Respondent or the concealed domain name owner is using the disputed domain name with intent for commercial gain taking undue advantage of the reputation and well-known status of the Complainants' names and trademarks. There is no evidence in the website under the disputed domain name that the Respondent or its concealed client offers any goods or services branded with the name "allianz". There is no evidence of the Respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

- The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name contains the famous and well-known ALLIANZ trademark and reproduces, entirely, the first Complainant's corporate name. All evidence leads to the conclusion that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, for the purpose of selling it to the Complainants, to a competitor or to any interested third party for a monetary consideration in excess of its out-of-pocket expenses and, while waiting for an offer, the disputed domain name is being used for the purpose of diverting Internet users in search of the Complainants' website, to its own commercial website. Previous UDRP panels have consistently found bad faith to be present in similar situations.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants' contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of the disputed domain name, a complainant shall prove the following three elements:

(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.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel has no doubt that "Allianz" is a term directly connected with the Complainants' insurance and asset management activities.

Annexes V and VI to the Complaint show that the Complainants own numerous trademark registrations in the term "Allianz" in many jurisdictions around the world since at least 1976.

The trademark ALLIANZ is wholly encompassed within the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name differs from the Complainants' trademark by the addition of the terms "seguros" (which means "insurance", in the Portuguese language) and "sa", as well as the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com".

In the test of confusing similarity under the Policy, which is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the complainant's trademark, it is well established in prior decisions under the UDRP that the mere addition of a non-distinctive word to a trademark in which a complainant has rights is not sufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. It is also well established in decisions under the UDRP that gTLD indicators (e.g., ".com", ".info", ".net", ".org") may be considered irrelevant in assessing confusing similarity between a trademark and a disputed domain name.

Furthermore, in the present case the registered expression "allianzsegurossa" reproduces the complete corporate name of the first Complainant, Allianz Seguros S.A.

As a result, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants' trademark, and that the Complainants have satisfied the first element of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides some examples, without limitation, of how a respondent can demonstrate a right or legitimate interest in a domain name:

(i) before receiving any notice of the dispute, the respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name; or

(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark at issue.

Based on the unrebutted prima facie evidence in the Complaint, the Panel finds that the above circumstances are not present in this particular case and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Complainants have not licensed nor authorized the use of their trademark to the Respondent, and the Panel finds no indication that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, the present record provides no evidence to demonstrate the Respondent's intent use of or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Consequently, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Complainants have proven the second element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that the following circumstances in particular, but without limitation, shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or 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 that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) the respondent 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) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its 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 its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

When the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent (in 2015) the trademark ALLIANZ was already internationally known and directly connected to the Complainants' insurance and asset management activities.

Additionally, the disputed domain name reproduces not only the Complainants' trademark, but also the exact corporate name of the first Complainant.

Therefore, the Panel concludes that it would not be plausible to consider that the Respondent – at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name – was not aware of the Complainants' trademark, or that the adoption of the term "allianzsegurossa" within the disputed domain name was a mere coincidence.

It is true that presently the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website, but only points to a standard advertising webpage of a free website designing tool.

However, UDRP panels have frequently found that the apparent lack of so-called active use of a domain name (passive holding) does not, in appropriate circumstances, prevent a finding of bad faith. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0") paragraph 3.2; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; and Polaroid Corporation v. Jay Strommen, WIPO Case No. D2005-1005.

The non-collaborative posture of the Respondent, (a) not presently using the disputed domain name, (b) not indicating any intention to use it, and (c) not at least providing justifications for the use of a third party internationally recognized trademark and of the corporate name of the first Complainant, certainly cannot be used in benefit of the Respondent in this Panel's opinion.

Such circumstances, including (d) the lack of any plausible good faith reason for the adoption of the term "allianzsegurossa" by the Respondent and (e) the Respondent's use of a privacy service to mask its identity are enough in this Panel's view to characterize bad faith registration and use in the present case.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and the Complainants have also satisfied the third element 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 disputed domain name <allianzsegurossa.com> be transferred to the Complainant Allianz Seguros S.A.

Rodrigo Azevedo
Sole Panelist
Date: March 17, 2016