WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Chubb INA Holdings Inc. v. 钱梦聃 (Meng Dan Qian)

Case No. D2021-0759

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Chubb INA Holdings Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Fish & Richardson P.C., United States.

The Respondent is 钱梦聃 (Meng Dan Qian), China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <blinkbychubb.com> is registered with Cloud Yuqu LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 12, 2021. On March 15, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 16, 2021, 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 March 16, 2021 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 in English on March 20, 2021.

On March 16, 2021, the Center transmitted an email communication to the Parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On March 16, 2021, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

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 March 24, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 13, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 14, 2021.

The Center appointed Jonathan Agmon as the sole panelist in this matter on April 20, 2021. 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, Chubb INA Holdings Inc. and its affiliated entities, through its predecessors in interest, began international use in commerce of the CHUBB mark for insurance as early as 1882. The Complainant is one of the world’s largest publicly traded property and casualty insurance company and one of the largest commercial insurers in the United States. The Complainant provides a broad range of insurance and reinsurance products under the CHUBB mark to insureds worldwide through operations in the United States and 53 other countries and territories. Through its use of the CHUBB mark for more than 130 years in connection with insurance services, the Complainant reported over USD 190 billion in assets and USD 41 billion in gross insurance premiums written in 2020. On February 23, 2021, the Complainant announced the launch of “BLINK by Chubb”— a new brand focused on delivering easy, effortless, and affordable insurance products for digitally savvy consumers.

The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations of the CHUBB and CHUBB-formative marks (collectively, the “CHUBB marks”) in the United States including but not limited to:

- CHUBB (word mark) (Registration No. 1,729,813) registered on November 3, 1992;
- CHUBB (with logo) (Registration No. 1,697,997) registered on June 30, 1992;
- CHUBB (stylized word mark) (Registration No. 5,157,396) registered on June 30, 1992;
- CHUBB. INSURED (word mark) (Registration No. 5,381,166) registered on January 16, 2018;
- INTEGRITY+ BY CHUBB (word mark) (Registration No. 5,083,629) registered on November 15, 2016;
- INTEGRITY BY CHUBB (word mark) (Registration No. 2,940,658) registered on April 12, 2005;
- INNOVATOR FROM CHUBB (word mark) (Registration No. 2,574,229) registered on May 28, 2002;
and
- MOVE UP TO CHUBB (word mark) (Registration No. 5,146,537) registered on February 21, 2017.

In addition to the above, the Complainant also owns trademark applications of the BLINK mark in the United States and other countries.

The Complainant is the owner of the domain names <chubb.com> which was registered on September 7, 1995 and <blinkinsured.com> which was registered on July 24, 2020. The Complainant has used the domain name <chubb.com> as its official website through which it advertises and promotes the services offered under its CHUBB marks.

The disputed domain name <blinkbychubb.com> was registered on February 26, 2021 and resolves to an active website containing pay-per-click links to third party advertisements offering insurance services.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions include the following:

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered CHUBB marks and the “BLINK by Chubb” brand as the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the CHUBB marks and the Complainant’s new brand that are insufficient to avoid confusing similarity.

The Complainant also argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name as it has not licensed or permitted the Respondent to use any of its trademarks or register the disputed domain name.

The Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s CHUBB marks and the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s CHUBB marks at the time of registration.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 Language of Proceedings

Paragraph 11 of the Rules provides that: “(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.”

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese.

The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English.

The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

The Panel cites the following with approval:

“Thus, the general rule is that the parties may agree on the language of the administrative proceeding. In the absence of this agreement, the language of the Registration Agreement shall dictate the language of the proceeding. However, the Panel has the discretion to decide otherwise having regard to the circumstances of the case. The Panel’s discretion must be exercised judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties taking into consideration matters such as command of the language, time and costs. It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her abilities to articulate the arguments for the case.” (See Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl, WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004).

The Panel finds that in the present case, the following should be taken into consideration upon deciding on the language of the proceeding:

(i) the disputed domain name consists of Latin letters, rather than Chinese characters;
(iii) the disputed domain name resolves to a website in the English language;
(iii) the Complainant cannot understand the Chinese language;
(iv) the Complainant may be unduly disadvantaged by having to conduct the proceeding in the Chinese language; and
(v) the Respondent did not object to the Complainant’s request that English be the language of the proceeding.

Upon considering the above, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding.

6.2 Substantive Issues

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. The disputed domain name <blinkbychubb.com> wholly integrates the Complainant’s CHUBB mark in its entirety. Given the highly distinctive nature of the CHUBB mark, the additional terms “blink” and “by” do not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name.

Further, it is well established that the addition of a generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, as a standard registration requirement, is disregarded under the first element of confusing similarity test (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.1).

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once the Complainant establishes a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1).

In the present case, the Complainant has demonstrated prima facie that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and the Respondent has failed to assert any such rights or legitimate interests.

The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations long before the disputed domain name was registered and that it is not affiliated with nor has it licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. D2010-0138).

There is also no evidence on record showing that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.3).

Further, the Respondent did not submit a Response in the present case and did not provide any explanation or evidence to show rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name sufficient to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant must also show that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith (see Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii)). Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides circumstances that may evidence bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

The Complainant has submitted evidence, which shows that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name long after the Complainant registered its trademarks. According to the evidence filed by the Complainant, the Complainant has owned registration for the CHUBB marks since the year 1992. In view of the evidence filed by the Complainant, and the widespread use of the CHUBB marks, it is suggestive of the Respondent’s bad faith in these particular circumstances that the trademark, owned by the Complainant, was registered long before the registration of the disputed domain name. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Respondent did not know of the Complainant’s mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name (see Sanofi-Aventis v. Abigail Wallace, WIPO Case No. D2009-0735).

The Complainant also submitted evidence that it launched the “BLINK by Chubb” service only three days before the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s press release was made widely available online announcing the launch of the Complainant’s new brand “BLINK by Chubb”. The Panel draws the adverse inference that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s mark and its “BLINK by Chubb” brand and therefore specifically targeted the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name.

Further, the Complainant also submitted evidence that the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page with links to third party websites offering insurance services. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that such behavior by the Respondent is an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Complainant’s competitor’s websites and to other unrelated websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s well-known marks. The Panel is also of the view that such use of the disputed domain name also disrupts the business of the Complainant.

Based on the particular circumstances of the present case and based on the evidence presented to the Panel, including the registration of the disputed domain name after the registration of the Complainant’s marks, the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s marks, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, and the fact that no Response was submitted by the Respondent, the Panel draws the inference that the disputed domain name was 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 <blinkbychubb.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Jonathan Agmon
Sole Panelist
Date: May 3, 2021