WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Swiss Re Ltd v. Aida Ebrahimpour, Mrdomain

Case No. DIR2021-0021

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Swiss Re Ltd, Switzerland, represented by TIMES Attorneys, Switzerland.

The Respondent is Aida Ebrahimpour, Mrdomain, Iran (Islamic Republic of).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <swissre.ir> is registered with IRNIC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 12, 2021. On October 12, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 17, 2021, IRNIC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the complete contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “irDRP”), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir 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 19, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 8, 2021. On November 25, 2021, the Center notified the Respondent’s default.

The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on November 30, 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 was founded in 1863. Its group is one of the largest reinsurers in the world.

The Complainant owns many trade marks for SWISS RE including Swiss trade mark No. 717011, filed on July 26, 2010, registered on June 1, 2018, and International Registration No. 1067014, registered on November 26, 2010, both in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, and 42.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 3, 2020.

The disputed domain name has been used to resolve to a holding page offering the disputed domain name for sale.

The Complainant sent cease and desist letters to the Respondent on February 12, 2020, and June 26, 2020. There was no response.

In AB Electrolux v. Aida Ebrahimpour, Mrdomain, WIPO Case No. DIR2020-0001, the Respondent was found to have “engaged in a pattern of registering domain names in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The following is a summary of the Complainant’s contentions.

The Complainant and its trade marks are well-known internationally.

The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trade mark apart from the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) suffix.

The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use its trade mark.

The fact that the disputed domain name is for sale shows that the Respondent does not claim any legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith.

The disputed domain name constitutes a passive holding in bad faith on the grounds that the Complainant is well-known and the disputed domain name clearly refers to the Complainant, the Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letters and there is no plausible explanation as to how anyone other than the Complainant could register the disputed domain name in good faith.

It is obvious that the Respondent’s intention was to benefit from the Complainant’s reputation and to deceive customers about a connection with the Complainant, or to sell the disputed domain name to a person with such a motive or to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that:

- the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights;

- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

- the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established rights in the mark SWISS RE by virtue of its registered trade marks as well as unregistered trade mark rights deriving from its extensive and longstanding use.

Disregarding the country-code TLD suffix (“.ir”), the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trade mark.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

As explained in section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)¹ , the consensus view is that, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If not, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.

Here, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorised the Respondent to use its trade mark.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples of circumstances which, if proved, suffice to demonstrate that a respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests.

As to paragraph 4(c)(1) of the Policy, there is no evidence of any use of the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor of any demonstrable preparations for such an offering.

Nor is there any evidence that paragraphs 4(c)(2) or (3) of the Policy apply in the circumstances of this case.

Furthermore, because the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trade mark, it carries a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant’s trade mark.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interests and there is no rebuttal by the Respondent.

For the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

The Panel has little difficulty in concluding that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, given the distinctiveness and fame of the Complainant’s mark, the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put.

Furthermore, as noted in section 3 above, in another irDRP case the Respondent was found to have engaged in a pattern of registering domain names reflecting third party trade marks.

In these circumstances, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and, because the Policy requires only registration or use in bad faith, it is unnecessary for the Panel to separately consider whether the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith.

For the above reasons, the Panel considers that the Complainant has established 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 disputed domain name <swissre.ir> be transferred to the Complainant.

Adam Taylor
Sole Panelist
Date: December 14, 2021

¹ Although WIPO Overview 3.0 is directed to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), given the similarity between the UDRP and the Policy, it is appropriate to have regard to these principles except to the extent that the Policy diverges from the UDRP.