WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Allianz SE v. Zhichao Yang

Case No. D2015-0638

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Zhichao Yang of Hefei, Anhui, China.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <allianstravelinsurance.com>, <allianztavelinsurance.com>, <allianztravelinsruance.com>, <allianztravelinsuranse.com>, <allianztravelinsureance.com>, <allianztravelinsurence.com>, <allinaztravelinsurance.com>, <allinztravelinsurance.com> are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 9, 2015. On April 9, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On April 9, 2015, 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 proceeding commenced on April 27, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 17, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 18, 2015.

The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on May 27, 2015. 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 the German company Allianz SE, with its head offices in Munich, Germany. It is a global leading company in providing financial services and it is known worldwide as a leader in travel insurance, assistance and personal services. The Complainant’s services are present in more than 70 countries. The mark ALLIANZ was ranked as no. 55 on Interbrand’s 15th Annual Best Global Brands Report, published in 2014.

Among other registrations, the Complainant is the owner of the International Trademark Registrations Nos. 713841, for ALLIANZ (word and design mark), granted on May 3, 1999, and 714618, for ALLIANZ (stylized), granted on May 4, 1999, both valid in China, also in class 36, covering insurance underwriting and financial operations, besides other goods and services.

The Complainant owns domain names comprising the trademark ALLIANZ, such as <allianz.de>, <allianz.com>, <allianz.us>, <allianz-assistance.de> and <allianz-assistance.com>.

According to the registrar (CSC Corporate Domains, Inc.)’s WhoIs data, the company Allianz Worldwide Partners SAS, of the Allianz Group, registered the domain name <allianztravelinsurance.com> on September 29, 2005.

The Respondent is Zhichao Yang, from Anhui, China.

The disputed domain names were registered on February 5, 2012.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant claims that the disputed domain names <allianstravelinsurance.com>, <allianztavelinsurance.com>, <allianztravelinsruance.com>, <allianztravelinsuranse.com>, <allianztravelinsureance.com>, <allianztravelinsurence.com>, <allinaztravelinsurance.com>, <allinztravelinsurance.com> incorporate its trademark ALLIANZ or a typo thereof followed by the expression “travelinsurance” or a typo thereof. The Complainant cites precedent decisions of the Higher Regional Court of Munich and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market, as well as UDRP decisions, all in favor of the Complainant, prohibiting third parties from infringing the Complainant’s rights over the trademark ALLIANZ and/or stating that the trademark has a high level of recognition in the general public.

It claims that the Respondent is exploiting the typos made by Internet users to attract to the Respondent’s websites those who are trying to access the Complainant’s websites.

According to the Complainant, no authorization to use the trademark ALLIANZ or to register domain names encompassing it has been granted to the Respondent by the Complainant.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and that the Respondent is using the disputed domain names in bad faith to direct Internet users to a page with (apparently sponsored) links to providers of services identical or similar to the services offered by the Complainant.

Finally, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain names.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and

(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The evidence presented demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark ALLIANZ in several countries, including in China, where the Respondent is domiciled, for insurance and financial services, among other services.

The disputed domain names comprise the Complainant’s trademark ALLIANZ or a typo of it followed by the expression “travelinsurance” or a typo of it.

The main element of the disputed domain names is “allianz”, which is identical to the Complainant’s trademark and trade name. The variations “allians”, “allinaz” and “allinz” present in 3 of the 8 disputed domain names are clearly typos of “allianz”.

The expression “travelinsurance” or typos thereof are not enough to avoid confusion by Internet users, mainly because the Complainant also offers travel insurance services and owns the domain name <allianztravelinsurance.com>, registered before the registration of the disputed domain names.

The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been proved by the Complainant, i.e., the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint, in accordance with paragraph 5 of the Rules.

The Respondent has no authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark or to register domain names containing the trademark ALLIANZ.

The Respondent is not known by the trademark ALLIANZ.

For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The trademark ALLIANZ is registered by the Complainant in several countries and has a high reputation in Europe, as being the Complainant’s trademark for insurance and financial services.

The Complainant owns the domain name <allianztravelinsurance.com> and uses it to offer travel insurance services.

The disputed domain names use the trademark ALLIANZ and the expression “travelinsurance” or typos thereof.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in using the trademark ALLIANZ.

The websites at the disputed domain names display links to third parties’ websites offering travel insurance services, such as “www.lonelyplanet.com”, “www.hthtravelinsurance.com”, “www.guardyourtrip.com”, among others. It is also possible to find the Complainant’s logo displayed on the websites at the disputed domain names.

In view of the above reasons, this Panel finds that by using the disputed domain names, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.

This Panel finds that the Respondent’s intention of taking undue advantage of the trademark ALLIANZ as described in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy has been demonstrated.

For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the disputed domain names have been registered and are being 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 names <allianstravelinsurance.com>, <allianztavelinsurance.com>, <allianztravelinsruance.com>, <allianztravelinsuranse.com>, <allianztravelinsureance.com>, <allianztravelinsurence.com>, <allinaztravelinsurance.com>, <allinztravelinsurance.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mario Soerensen Garcia
Sole Panelist
Date: June 8, 2015