WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Allianz SE v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / BCV Banque

Case No. D2021-3219

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Allianz SE, Germany, represented internally.

The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / BCV Banque, Benin.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <allianz-investition.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 29, 2021. On September 29, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 29, 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 October 1, 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 amendment to the Complaint on October 1, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 14, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 3, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 5, 2021.

The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on November 16, 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 is part of one of the oldest and largest Group of companies in the field of insurance and financial services. The Group was founded in 1890. The Complainant owns many trademark registrations for ALLIANZ such as:

(1) International trademark registration No. 447004, registered on September 12, 1979;
(2) German trademark registration No. 987481, registered on July 11, 1979;
(3) European Union trademark registration No. 000013656, registered on July 22, 2002.

The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on August 9, 2021. The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark and offering financial services including auto loan and insurances.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant owns the trademark ALLIANZ and has registered it worldwide. The Complainant’s trademark ALLIANZ is a well-known trademark as established by prior UDRP panels. The use of the disputed domain name will confuse consumers and lead them to believe that they are dealing with the Complainant. The Complainant has devoted great resources and efforts in building the goodwill of its trademark.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark. The disputed domain name does not meet any of the criteria set out under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent is attempting to trade off the reputation of the Complainant and its mark.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The disputed domain name was registered with the intent to benefit from the Complainant’s trademark which is well known internationally. The Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark as the disputed domain name has incorporated it in its entirety. The Respondent uses an email address linked to the disputed domain name and it must be doing so for phishing purposes.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant owns trademark registrations for ALLIANZ. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademark ALLIANZ.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark ALLIANZ in its entirety. It is established that the incorporation of a well-known trademark is sufficient to establish confusing similarity. The use of the additional term “investition” does not eliminate confusing similarity because the Complainant’s trademark ALLIANZ remains recognizable in the disputed the domain name. Furthermore, given that the Complainant offers asset management services, the use of the word “investition” (“investment” in German) supports the Panel’s findings under the third element that it reinforces an impression of the disputed domain name being connected with the Complainant and its trademark. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” should typically be ignored when assessing confusing similarity as established by prior UDRP decisions.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) 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 does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such showing is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent. In the instant case, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Complainant has established a prima facie case and the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent has not been able to provide any evidence to show that it has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark as ALLIANZ is a well-known trademark. The use of the word “investition” reinforces the impression that the disputed domain name is affiliated with the Complainant. The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trademark and offering financial services including auto loan and insurances, and an email service seems to be attached to the disputed domain name, which indicates that the Respondent might have plans for phishing or for scams. Such conduct of using a domain name, to attract Internet users for commercial gain, would fall squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The use of a privacy shield service is under the circumstances a further indication of bad faith. Given the above, the Panel believes that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to trade off the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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, <allianz-investition.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Nayiri Boghossian
Sole Panelist
Date: November 28, 2021