WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Allianz SE v. Harryson Trey

Case No. D2021-1309

1. The Parties

Complainant is Allianz SE, Germany, internally represented.

Respondent is Harryson Trey, Nigeria.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <allainzloans.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 28, 2021. On April 28, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 28, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on April 29, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 3, 2021.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 19, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 8, 2021. Respondent did not file a formal Response but sent several emails in English on April 29, 2021, May 19, 2021 and June 9, 2021. Other emails were also sent on May 3, 2021, May 4, 2021, and May 5, 2021, which included what appeared to be a proposed settlement. On June 9, 2021, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed to appoint a panel.

The Center appointed Clive L. Elliott Q.C., as the sole panelist in this matter on June 18, 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

Complainant is a German company formerly known as Allianz Aktiengesellschaft and founded in 1890 in Berlin, Germany. It is the parent company of one of the oldest and largest international insurance and financial services Groups in the world. Its London office was opened in 1893. Since its inception, Complainant has continuously operated under the ALLIANZ name and used the ALLIANZ mark (Complainant’s Mark) in connection with its insurance, healthcare and financial services products.

Complainant is the registered owner of the ALLIANZ mark and derivatives thereof in jurisdictions around the world including:

Complainant has registered its flagship brand “Allianz” comprehensively under available Top-Level Domains both generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLD”) and country code Top-Level Domains (“ccTLD”). The following table lists some of the domain names which are registered in the name of Allianz Technology SE, the German IT affiliate company, or local subsidiary of Allianz SE.

According to the publicly available WhoIs, the Domain Name was registered on April 19, 2021. According to the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved to a website promoting wealth management services under the name “Allianz loans”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts that Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark as it wholly contains the mark, with the addition of the word “loans”. As Complainant is one of the largest providers of financial services worldwide, the use of the name <allianzloans.com> for financial services implies that Respondent is associated with Complainant.

Complainant states that the strong reputation and highly distinctive character of Complainant’s Mark has been confirmed by different authorities including UDRP and Oberlandesgericht München (Higher Regional Court of Munich), and Complainant’s Mark is well known in many countries worldwide, especially with regard to insurance and financial affairs.

Complainant claims that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the “Allianz” mark or the goodwill Complainant has developed in its mark. Respondent is trading on the fame of Complainant’s Mark and exploiting his website with the good name of Complainant.

Further, Complainant claims that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor is he making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, and has registered the Domain Name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not file a formal Response but sent several emails in English on April 29, 2021, May 3, 2021, May 4, 2021, May 5, 2021, May 19, 2021 and June 9, 2021, advising that he is freelance web designer. Respondent indicates he is not the owner of the Domain Name (but provides no further details about the person or entity he claims to be his client). However, he also indicates that he has terminated the Domain Name.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant is a long-standing and large international insurance and financial services company based in Germany. It has continuously operated under the Allianz name and used Complainant’s Mark to indicate the source of its insurance, healthcare and financial services and products.

By virtue of Complainant’s extensive use of Complainant’s Mark, the Panel is satisfied it has a reputation in Complainant’s Mark. Further, Complainant has registered Complainant’s Mark in a number of jurisdictions around the world. It plainly has rights in Complainant’s Mark. In this regard, the addition of “loans” to the mark ALLIANZ, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8.

Therefore, the Domain Name is found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark.

The first ground under the Policy is made out.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant contends that Respondent is using the Domain Name to trade on Complainant’s repute and on Complainant’s Mark. The Panel is satisfied it is appropriate to draw an inference that Respondent is drawing on Complainant’s fame to help expose and promote his website. While Respondent has not filed a formal response, he has indicated (informally) that he is a freelance web designer and that he has terminated the Domain Name. It is unclear how he has been able to do so if he is not the owner of the Domain Name, but that is a matter the Panel does not need to resolve.

Regardless of what Respondent has done or purports to do regarding the Domain Name the point is that he has no apparent rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name (nor in Complainant’s Mark or a mark confusingly similar thereto).

Complainant rightly points out that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor is he making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name

For these reasons Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Further, Respondent has failed to rebut that case.

Accordingly, the second ground under the Policy is made out.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Complainant alleges that Respondent has acted in bad faith.

Considering the matter as a whole, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and used for the purpose of taking advantage of Complainant’s reputation and Complainant’s Mark. Given Complainant’s extensive and long-standing reputation in Complainant’s Mark and the failure to try and explain why he registered and used the Domain Name, the Panel finds that Respondent’s conduct amounts to bad faith under the Policy. In addition, the Panel notes Complainant’s business interests in the financial services industry, and finds that the addition of the word “loans” to “allianz” suggests, wrongly, that there is a connection between Respondent and Complainant.

Complainant has therefore established the third ground under 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 <allainzloans.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Clive L. Elliott Q.C.
Sole Panelist
Date: July 1, 2021