WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Allianz SE v. Innokentiy Maskileyson

Case No. D2018-1830

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Innokentiy Maskileyson of Moscow, the Russian Federation.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <allianz.travel> (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with EPAG Domainservices GmbH (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 10, 2018. On August 10, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On August 13, 2018, 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 the same date 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 amended Complaint on August 16, 2018.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 August 28, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 17, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, on September 18, 2018, the Center notified the Parties about the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process.

The Center appointed Mariya Koval as the sole panelist in this matter on September 27, 2018. 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 a parent company of the world’s oldest and largest insurance and financial services group, which was founded in 1890 and is headquartered in Munich, Germany. As of today the Complainant, with more than 140,000 employees, has operations in over 70 countries and has approximately 88 million customers worldwide. The Complainant’s services include property and casualty insurance, life and health insurance and asset management.

Since the date of its foundation, the Complainant has permanently operated the ALLIANZ Trademark (“ALLIANZ Trademark”), heavily investing in its promotion and worldwide notoriety.

The Complainant is the proprietor of a large number of registrations for the ALLIANZ Trademark in numerous jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, the following ones:

The Complainant and its subsidiaries operate the following numerous domain names:

- <allianz.de>

- <allianz.com> - registered on May 21, 1997

- <allianz.us> - registered on May 16, 2002

- <allianz.fr> - registered on April 15, 2005

- <allianzgi.com> - registered on January 28, 2004

- <allianz-jobs.com> - registered on January 28, 2016

- <allianztravelinsurance.com> - registered on September 29, 2005

- <travelinsurance.ca> - registered on October 23, 2000

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on January 23, 2017. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website that offers insurance services to travelers abroad.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it directly owns exclusive rights in the ALLIANZ Trademark and derivatives thereof in jurisdictions around the world. The reputation and highly distinctive character of the Complainant’s ALLIANZ Trademark have already been confirmed by different authorities.

The Complainant further asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ALLIANZ Trademarks in which it has rights in view of by use of the ALLIANZ name and Trademark without any additions in combination with the generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) “.travel” there is a clear impression that the Disputed Domain Name refers to the renowned ALLIANZ Trademark.

The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name since he holds no registrations for any ALLIANZ Trademarks, he has never been licensed or authorized in any way by the Complainant to use the ALLIANZ Trademark and he is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name.

The Complainant puts a special focus on the manner of use of the Disputed Domain Name that does not show any indication of a legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name but provides evidence of the Respondent’s intention to profit from the violation of the Complainant’s ALLIANZ Trademark rights.

Finally, the Complainant argues that in view of the Respondent exploiting the good name of the Complainant with his website, trying to take advantage of the well-known Complainant’s ALLIANZ Trademark and striking one of the core business areas of the Complainant, the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements are present:

(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which a Complainant has rights; and

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of 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 provided evidence that it has established rights in the ALLIANZ Trademark on the base of its more than hundred years’ use and great number of trademark registrations worldwide. The Complainant’s ALLIANZ Trademark is undoubtedly a well-known mark in the field of insurance and financial services, that has been also confirmed by previous UDRP panels, see. e.g. Allianz SE v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., WIPO Case No. D2016-0896 “the Panel also finds that the Complainant’s name is widely known in connection with such services [insurance and other financial services] as a result of its trading activities over many years”; Allianz SE v. Fernando Notario Britez / Oneandone, Private Registration, WIPO Case No. D2013-0279 “it [ALLIANZ Trademark] clearly is a well-known trademark in the insurance and financial services industries”.

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s the well-known ALLIANZ Trademark, which is highly distinctive, and is at the same time the Complainant’s company name, in its entirety combined with the gTLD “.travel”. Numerous UDRP panels have acknowledged that the incorporation of the trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, see e.g. AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally, WIPO Case No. D2005-0758. It is a common practice that the gTLD is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.

In view of the above the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALLIANZ Trademark and therefore the Complainant has established the first element under the Policy set forth by paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

According to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.5.1 UDRP panels have found that domain names identical to a complainant’s trademark carry a high risk of implied affiliation. The Disputed Domain Name completely incorporates the Complainant’s world-known ALLIANZ Trademark which at the same time is also the Complainant’s company name.

The Panel considers the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name in view of the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and he has not received a license, authorization or consent from the Complainant to register or to make use of the ALLIANZ Trademark.

Furthermore, the Panel concludes that in view of the global fame of the ALLIANZ Trademark it is highly unlikely that anybody, especially a natural person, could legitimately adopt the Disputed Domain Name for commercial use other than for creation of confusion with the Complainant.

The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website, which offers insurance services for travelers abroad, i.e. the same services as the Complainant provides. There is no information on the Respondent’s website with respect to the insurance services provider or to any connection with the Complainant. According to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5, fundamentally, a respondent’s use of a domain name will not be considered “fair” if it falsely suggests affiliation with the trademark owner. Taking into consideration that the Respondent is not in any way authorized by the Complainant to provide insurance services under the Complainant’s ALLIANZ Trademark, and in the absence of any explanation from the Respondent’s side the Panel concludes that the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Thus, the Respondent has no connection and/or affiliation with the Complainant and correspondingly has no legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name.

Further, the Respondent has used a privacy service shield to register the Disputed Domain Name to hide its identity which also suggests lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

Therefore, the Complainant has satisfied the second requirement that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Taking into consideration that the ALLIANZ Trademark is globally well-known and widely used, the Panel considers that it is virtually impossible that the Respondent could not be aware of the Complainant’s ALLIANZ Trademark at the time of registration of the Disputed Domain Name. According to the evidence provided (Annex A to the Complaint), the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on January 23, 2017, almost 130 years after the Complainant’s first use in commerce of the ALLIANZ Trademark and almost 40 years after the Complainant’s first ALLIANZ Trademark registration. It is also more than doubtful that the Respondent has chosen the Disputed Domain Name, which is identical to the Complainant’s ALLIANZ Trademark, accidentally, not having any purpose to confuse Internet users. According to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2, noting the near instantaneous and global reach of the Internet and search engines, and particularly in circumstances where the complainant’s mark is widely known (including in its sector) or highly specific and a respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark (particularly in the case of domainers), panels have been prepared to infer that the respondent knew, or have found that the respondent should have known, that its registration would be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark.

Internet users, accessing the Disputed Domain Name, would most probably believe that the Disputed Domain Name is related to the Complainant and the Complainant’s insurance services, also taking into consideration the fact that the Complainant operates two websites under domain names <allianztravelinsurance.com> and <travelinsurance.ca> through which it offers and promotes its travel insurance services. Complete incorporation of the well-known ALLIANZ Trademark in the Disputed Domain Name and offering travel insurance services on the website to which it resolves for the purpose of attracting Internet users to the Respondent’s website cannot be obviously considered as use in good faith. Based on the above, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent, having registered the Disputed Domain Name, intends to make illegitimate profits by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.

The Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s contentions and to provide any explanation of good faith use of the Disputed Domain Name may also be considered an indication of bad faith, see e.g. News Group Newspapers Limited and News Network Limited v. Momm Amed la, WIPO Case No. D2000-1623.

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the third element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been established.

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.travel> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mariya Koval
Sole Panelist
Date: October 11, 2018