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. Vachagan Khachatryan

Case No. DAM2012-0001

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Vachagan Khachatryan of Yerevan, Armenia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <allianz.am> is registered with ABCDomain LLC (“ABCDomain”) (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 21, 2012. On September 21, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 24, 2012, 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.

The Center verified that 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 9, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 29, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 30, 2012.

The Center appointed Johan Sjöbeck as the sole panelist in this matter on November 8, 2012. 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 has submitted evidence that it is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for ALLIANZ, including the following:

ALLIANZ, international trademark registration No. 447004 and registration date September 12, 1979.

ALLIANZ, international trademark registration No. 714618 and registration date May 4, 1999.

ALLIANZ (design), international trademark registration No. 713841 and registration date May 3, 1999.

ALLIANZ, German trademark registration No. 987481 and registration date July 11, 1979.

ALLIANZ, German trademark registration No. 39927827 and registration date July 16, 1999.

ALLIANZ, CTM trademark registration No. 000013656 and registration date July 22, 2002.

ALLIANZ (design), CTM trademark registration No. 002981298 and registration date April 5, 2004.

The disputed domain name <allianz.am> was registered on June 19, 2012.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant is one of the oldest and largest international insurance and financial services groups in the world. The first company of today’s Allianz Group, Allianz Versicherungs-AG, was founded in 1890 in Berlin, Germany. The Complainant has continuously operated under the name Allianz and has used the mark ALLIANZ in connection with insurance, healthcare and financial services. The Complainant has approximately 142,000 employees worldwide and serves over 78 million customers in more than 70 countries. Total revenues of the Complainant in 2011 added up to EUR 103.6 billion.

The disputed domain name <allianz.am> is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark ALLIANZ. Armenia is explicitly covered by the Complainant’s international trademark registrations. The Complainant maintains that the Respondent’s use of the trademark in the disputed domain name creates confusion for Internet users.

The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in any other way than offering it for sale at Sedo’s domain name parking platform. Thus, the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name for commercial purposes.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect of the ALLIANZ trademark or the goodwill that the Complainant has developed in its mark. To the contrary, the Respondent owns no trademark registrations for any ALLIANZ trademark and has never received a license or any other form of authorization or consent from the Complainant to make use of the ALLIANZ trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

Having in mind that the Respondent has offered the disputed domain name for sale it is apparent that the Respondent intentionally tries to make illegitimate profits by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:

(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant is, according to the submitted evidence, the owner of the registered trademark ALLIANZ. The disputed domain name <allianz.am> contains the trademark in its entirety. The country code Top-Level domain (“ccTLD”) suffix, here “.am”, may be disregarded for purposes of this comparison under the Policy.

Having the above in mind, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark and that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant must show that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. The Respondent may establish a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following:

(i) that it has made preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute; or

(ii) that it is commonly known by the domain name, even if it has not acquired any trademark rights; or

(iii) that it intends to make a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.

The Complainant’s trademark registration for ALLIANZ predates the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name <allianz.am>. The Complainant has not licensed, approved or in any way consented to the Respondent’s use of the ALLIANZ trademark in the disputed domain name.

In addition to the above, it has been argued by the Complainant that the Respondent does not make a legitimate use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The evidence in the case indicates that the Respondent is offering the disputed domain name for sale via a domain name parking platform.

Although given the opportunity, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence in this case indicating that the Respondent is the owner of any trademark rights similar to the disputed domain name or that the Respondent is or has been commonly known by the disputed domain name <allianz.am>.

By not submitting a Response, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Thus, there is no evidence in the record that refutes the Complainant’s submissions, and the Panel concludes that the Complainant has also proved the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of bad faith registration and use include without limitation:

(i) circumstances indicating the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the owner of a trademark or to a competitor of the trademark owner, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) circumstances indicating that the domain name were registered in order to prevent the owner of a trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided it is a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) circumstances indicating that the domain name has intentionally been used in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on a website or location.

The Complainant has submitted evidence demonstrating that the disputed domain name is offered for sale via an international domain name parking website. There is no other documented use of the disputed domain name.

Thus, the evidence in the case before the Panel indicates that the disputed domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of selling the domain name registration to the owner of the trademark or to a competitor of the trademark owner, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name.

There is no evidence in the case that refutes the Complainant’s submissions.

The Panel concludes that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy and that the disputed domain name <allianz.am> has been registered and 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.am> be transferred to the Complainant.

Johan Sjöbeck
Sole Panelist
Date: November 22, 2012

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/