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, Whoisprotection.cc / Joko Muryanto

Case No. D2021-1955

1. The Parties

Complainant is Allianz SE, Germany, internally represented.

Respondent is Domain Admin, Whoisprotection.cc, Malaysia / Joko Muryanto, Indonesia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <daftarproteksiallianz.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 22, 2021. On June 22, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 22, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on June 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 amendment to the Complaint on June 30, 2021.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 28, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 17, 2021. On August 2, 2021, Respondent sent an email to the Center in a language other than the language of proceeding. On August 9, the Center requested Respondent for confirmation if the email sent was a complete Response. No reply from Respondent was received.

The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on September 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

Complainant is the parent company of an international insurance and financial services group founded in the 1890s in Germany. Complainant has, since its inception, continuously operated under the ALLIANZ name and used the ALLIANZ mark in connection with its insurance, healthcare and financial services products. With approximately 147,000 employees worldwide, Complainant serves around 100 million customers in over 70 countries, handles insurance matters both in Germany and internationally, and manages third party assets of around EUR 1,686 billion.

Complainant owns numerous registered trademarks worldwide with the term ALLIANZ, including, for example the following:

- International trademark registration number 447 004 for ALLIANZ registered on September 12, 1979;
- International trademark registration number 714 618 for ALLIANZ registered on May 4, 1999;
- International trademark registration number 713 841 for ALLIANZ and design, registered on May 3, 1999;
- German trademark registration number 987 481 for ALLIANZ registered on July 11, 1979;
- German trademark registration number 399 27 827 for ALLIANZ registered on July 16, 1999;
- European Union trademark registration number 000013656 for ALLIANZ registered on July 22, 2002; and
- European Union trademark registration number 002981298 for ALLIANZ and design registered on April 5, 2004.

Complainant also owns and has registered numerous domain names with the ALLIANZ mark, including, for example: <allianz.de>, <allianz.com>, <allianz.us>, <allianz.fr>, <allianzgi.com>, and <allianz-jobs.com>.

Respondent registered the Domain Name on June 10, 2021. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved to a website that prominently stated “Daftar Proteksi Allianz”, “Allianz Protection […] Make sure you and your family are always protected with the best and most trusted insurance from Allianz Indonesia. Various types of insurance are available to suit your and your family’s needs” with links which encouraged users to contact third party insurance services. The Domain Name has since been locked by the Registrar and at the time of the Decision, the Domain Name resolves to an error page.

5. Parties’ Contentions

Complainant contends that (i) the Domain Name is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

In particular, Complainant contends that it has trademark registrations for the ALLIANZ marks and own domain names incorporating the ALLIANZ marks. Complainant contends Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name to confuse Internet users looking for bona fide and well-known ALLIANZ products and services.

Complainant notes that it has no affiliation with Respondent, nor authorized Respondent to register or use a domain name, which includes Complainant’s marks, and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the registration and use of the Domain Name. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in acquiring and setting up the Domain Name, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s rights.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not formally reply to Complainant’s contentions. However, in his email dated August 2, 2021 to the Center, Respondent noted in Indonesian, that the Domain Name was submitted by his client, which Respondent stated, is an agent of Allianz Insurance, as the agent’s site address. Respondent further noted that the website owner has moved to another domain, that the Domain Name is no longer active, and that he hopes, with this clarification, the problem is solved. There was no further communication from Respondent.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states:

“Does a respondent’s default/failure to respond to the complainant’s contentions automatically result in the complaint succeeding?

Noting the burden of proof on the complainant, a respondent’s default (i.e., failure to submit a formal response) would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true.”

Thus, although in this case Respondent has failed to formally respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with Complainant to establish the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., The Knot, Inc. v. In Knot We Trust LTD, WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Complainant provided evidence of their rights in the ALLIANZ marks, as noted above. Complainant has also submitted evidence, which supports that the ALLIANZ marks are widely-known trademarks and a distinctive identifier of Complainant’s products and services. Complainant has therefore proven that it has the requisite rights in the ALLIANZ marks.

With Complainant’s rights in the ALLIANZ mark established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the Domain Name, typically disregarding the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in which it is registered (in this case, “.com”), is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No. D2010-0842.

Here, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANZ marks. These marks, which are fanciful and inherently distinctive, are recognizable in the Domain Name. The incorporation of the ALLIANZ mark with the addition of the Indonesian term “daftarproteksi” – which means “protection list” in English – before “ALLIANZ”, in the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and the Domain Name registered by Respondent.

Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make at least a prima facie showing that a respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once a complainant makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP.

From the record in this case, it is evident that Respondent was, and is, aware of Complainant and the ALLIANZ marks, and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant has confirmed that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the ALLIANZ trademarks or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the trademarks. Respondent is also not known to be associated with or commonly known by the ALLIANZ marks.

In addition, Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, the evidence demonstrates that the Domain Name resolved to a webpage that purportedly offers services related to Complainant’s business, using Complainant’s ALLIANZ mark and logo. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use and cannot under the circumstances confer on Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. See, e.g., Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Charles Duke / Oneandone Private Registration, WIPO Case No. D2013-0875. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name.

Further, the nature of the Domain Name carries a risk of implied affiliation with Complainant (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1).

Accordingly, Complainant has provided evidence supporting its prima facie claim that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has failed to produce countervailing evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent’s actions indicate that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration and use on the part of a domain name registrant, namely:

“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have 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 your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have 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 you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”

The Panel finds that Complainant provided ample evidence to show that registration and use of the ALLIANZ marks long predate the registration of the Domain Name by Respondent, more specifically, the ALLIANZ marks have been registered since at least as early as 1979, well before Respondent registered the Domain Name on June 10, 2021. Complainant is also well established and known. Indeed, the record shows that Complainant’s ALLIANZ marks and related services are widely known and recognized. Therefore, and also noting the composition of the Domain Name itself, Respondent was likely aware of the ALLIANZ marks when it registered the Domain Name, or knew or should have known that the Domain Name was confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2; see also TTT Moneycorp Limited v. Privacy Gods / Privacy Gods Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-1973.

The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad faith. See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070; BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No. D2006-0007.

Further, the registration of the Domain Name incorporating Complainant’s ALLIANZ mark with the addition of the Indonesian term “daftarproteksi” – which means “protection list” in English – suggests Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ALLIANZ mark at the time of registration of the Domain Name and its effort to opportunistically capitalize on the registration and use of the Domain Name.

In addition, Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, the evidence demonstrates that at the time of the filing of the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved to a website that prominently stated “Daftar Proteksi Allianz”, “Allianz Protection […] Make sure you and your family are always protected with the best and most trusted insurance from Allianz Indonesia. Various types of insurance are available to suit your and your family’s needs” with links which encouraged users to contact third party insurance services.

The Domain Name has since been locked by the Registrar and at the time of the Decision, the Domain Name resolves to an error page. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use and cannot under the circumstances confer on Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. See, e.g., Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Charles Duke / Oneandone Private Registration, WIPO Case No. D2013-0875. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name. See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

Here, the present circumstances, including the distinctiveness and reputation of the ALLIANZ marks, the failure of Respondent to submit a formal response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the Domain Name may be put, support a finding of bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith and Complainant succeeds under the third element of paragraph 4(a) 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 Domain Name, <daftarproteksiallianz.com>, be transferred to Complainant.

Kimberley Chen Nobles
Sole Panelist
Date: October 4, 2021

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/