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. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp.

Case No. D2016-0896

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Allianz SE of Munich, Germany, represented internally.

The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. of Nassau, New Providence, the Bahamas.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <allianz-brokers.com> is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 4, 2016. On May 4, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 9, 2016, 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. An amendment to the Complaint was filed with the Center on May 10, 2016.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 May 18, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 7, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 9, 2016.

The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on June 20, 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 Complainant is a company organized under the laws of Germany. It is a supplier of insurance, healthcare and financial services products.

The Complainant is the proprietor of numerous trademark registrations for the mark ALLIANZ in various territories. Its registrations include, for example:

- European Union Trade Mark number 13,656 for the mark ALLIANZ registered on July 22, 2002 in Classes 16, 35 and 36 for goods and services including insurance and financial affairs

- German trademark number 987,481 for the mark ALLIANZ registered on July 11, 1979 in Class 36 for insurance services

- International trademark number 447,004 for the mark ALLIANZ registered on December 9, 1979 in Class 36 for insurance and financial services and designating a total of 40 countries in Europe and Asia

The disputed domain name was registered on February 26, 2016.

The Complainant has submitted evidence by way of web page printouts that, on April 29, 2016, the disputed domain name resolved to a web page headed "Allianz-Brokers - Home Page", stating "Allianz-Brokers Best Forex Broker Since 2009" and "Trade With Confidence on the World's Leading Trading Software" and purporting to offer an online trading platform.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that it is the ultimate parent company of the Allianz group of companies, which has traded under the name and mark ALLIANZ since its inception in 1890. The Complainant states that it is one of the world's leading providers of integrated financial services, including insurance, healthcare and financial services. It states that it has approximately 85 million customers in over 70 countries and is one of the world's largest asset managers with over EUR 1,276 billion under management as at the end of 2015. Its total revenues for that year were in excess of EUR 125 billion.

The Complainant submits that, as a result of its business activities, its mark ALLIANZ is distinctive and well-known and has been ranked by Interbrand at number 54 in the world.

In addition to its trademark registrations referred to above, the Complainant relies on its domain name registrations including <allianz.com>, <allianzbroker.com> and <allianzebroker.co.uk> which it uses to direct to websites promoting its products and services.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical to its mark ALLIANZ save for the hyphenated addition "broker". Not only is this term descriptive in nature, but it is mainly associated with insurance brokers, which represent the most important sales channel for the Complainant's products and will therefore add to the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that it has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its ALLIANZ mark and that the Respondent has not commonly been known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that that the Respondent is not using of the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services and that it is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

Instead, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for the purposes of a fraudulent website. In particular, the Complainant submits that the Respondent must have registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant's trademark and services and is highly unlikely to have chosen the German word "Allianz" linked with the descriptive English term "brokers" by coincidence. Furthermore, the Respondent is using not only the Complainant's trademark on its website but also the same colour logo as the Complainant. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent's website purports to offer users the facility to deposit up to USD 50,000 to invest in stock transactions, but is in fact used to obtain their personal details for fraudulent purposes and/or to purloin any funds that may be deposited. The Complainant states that the Respondent fails to give any reliable address details, displaying only a map of the whole of the City of London, and that its phone numbers only connect to recorded messages in French.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In particular, the Complainant contends that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). The Complainant cites and submits evidence of one particular customer having mistakenly opened an account with the Respondent having believed its website to be operated by the Complainant. It also contends that all of the Respondent's activity in connection with the disputed domain name is damaging to the Complainant's valuable image.

The Complainant requests a transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are:

(i) that the disputed domain name 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 disputed domain name; and

(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Even in a case such as this where the Respondent has not contested the Complaint, it is still necessary for the Complainant to establish that all of the three above elements are present.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established that it has longstanding registered trademark rights in numerous territories for the mark ALLIANZ in connection with insurance and other financial services. The Panel also finds that the Complainant's name is widely known in connection with such services as a result of its trading activities over many years. The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant's mark ALLIANZ together with the hyphenated term "brokers" and the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" which is typically to be disregarded for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the addition of the term "brokers" does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trademark, but rather adds to the likelihood of confusion as it refers to an area of activity closely connected with the Complainant's services. In the circumstances, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In the opinion of the Panel, the contentions advanced by the Complainant as set out above give rise to a prima facie case for the Respondent to answer that it has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not participated in this administrative proceeding and has not provided any explanation for its registration or its use of the disputed domain name, whether in accordance with any of the criteria set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. The Panel having no other evidence of any rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent's part, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Having found that the Complainant's mark ALLIANZ is widely known in connection with insurance and financial services, the Panel accepts the Complainant's submission that it is highly unlikely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name coincidentally. Instead, the Panel infers from the Respondent's choice and its use of the disputed domain name that it registered the name in the knowledge of the Complainant's trademark and with the intention of taking unfair advantage of the Complainant's valuable goodwill attaching to that trademark.

The Panel also finds that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purposes of a website offering (or purporting to offer) financial or investment services and that it has used the Complainant's trademark in connection with that website in a manner which is liable to confuse (and has confused) Internet users into believing that the website is operated or approved by the Complainant. The Panel therefore accepts the Complainant's submission that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).

The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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, <allianz-brokers.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: June 24, 2016

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/