WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Allianz SE v. Carol Manfra

Case No. D2017-0519

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Carol Manfra of Fort Lee, New Jersey, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <allianzuk.com> is registered with Register.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 14, 2017. On March 14, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 14, 2017, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 23, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 12, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 13, 2017.

The Center appointed Dr. Clive N.A. Trotman as the sole panelist in this matter on April 21, 2017. 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, based in Germany, is prominent internationally in the areas of insurance, financial and other services. The Complainant traces its history back to 1890 and its present scale is that it currently employs about 142,500 people in 70 countries. The Complainant conducts insurance business in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”) through its affiliate Allianz Insurance plc.

The following are representative for the purposes of the present proceeding of trademarks for ALLIANZ held by the Complainant:

ALLIANZ, international trademark, WIPO, registered September 12, 1979, registration number 447004, class 36;

ALLIANZ, word mark, German Patent and Trade Mark Office (“DPMA”), registered July 11, 1979, registration number 987481, class 36;

ALLIANZ, European Union Trade Mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”), registered July 22, 2002, registration number 000013656, classes 16, 35, 36.

The Complainant also uses domain names incorporating its trademark including <allianz.de>, <allianz.com>, <allianz.us>, <allianz.fr>, <allianz.uk>, <allianzdeutschland.de> and <allianzusa.com>.

Nothing of substance is known about the Respondent except for the name and contact details provided to the Registrar for the purpose of registration of the disputed domain name on March 6, 2017. The disputed domain name resolves to a generic landing page displaying various lists of links to websites relating to insurance and finance.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that it has rights in the trademarks for ALLIANZ listed in section 4 above and has produced copies of online documentation from WIPO, DPMA and EUIPO respectively.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <allianzuk.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark. The disputed domain name, by incorporating “allianz” and “uk”, gives the impression of being the Complainant’s provider of insurance and financial services in the United Kingdom. The Complainant already uses the domain name <allianz.uk>.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and has never been licensed or authorised to use the Complainant’s trademark. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves does not indicate its purpose or who is responsible for it. Emails, annexed in evidence, have been received by staff at overseas divisions of the Complainant purporting to come from a senior executive of the Complainant but originating from, and asking for a reply to, an email address incorporating the disputed domain name instead of that executive’s proper email address. These emails have been in the nature of phishing attempts. The disputed domain name is not in use for a bona fide purpose, or for a fair or noncommercial purpose, and is not a name by which the Respondent has been known.

The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves is set up as a pay-per-click operation in order to create revenue for the Respondent by offering visitors a selection of links to other websites under headings relating mainly to insurance. The Respondent’s website uses a similar blue and white colour scheme to the Complainant’s own United Kingdom-based website. The Complainant’s trademark is so well known internationally in relation to insurance and finance that the Respondent could not reasonably have been unaware of it.

The Complainant reiterates in relation to bad faith use that, as described above in connection with rights and legitimate interests, the Respondent has created an email address based on the disputed domain name, impersonating a senior executive of the Complainant’s group of companies, that has been used to contact employees at other offices in order to attempt to acquire confidential information for purposes assumed to be fraudulent.

The Complainant has cited certain judicial decisions recognising the strength of its trademark against conflicting trademarks, including a German Higher Regional Court of Munich judgment (translated into English) and an EUIPO trademark dispute decision. The Complainant has also submitted certain previous decisions under the Policy that it considers should support its position.

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Respondent is required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that the Complainant asserts to the applicable dispute-resolution provider, in compliance with the Rules, that:

“(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.”

The Complainant has made the relevant assertions as required by the Policy. The dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has produced evidence of its rights in the trademark ALLIANZ satisfactory to the Panel for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

The generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) designation, in this instance “.com”, may generally be disregarded in the determination of confusing similarity. The remainder of the disputed domain name comprises “allianz”, which is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, followed by “uk”, being the widely recognised abbreviation for United Kingdom. The Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and further finds the addition of the geographical descriptor “uk” to enhance the confusion by alluding falsely to the United Kingdom presence of the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds for the Complainant under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made out a prima facie case to the effect that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and has not been licensed or authorised to use the Complainant’s trademark.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides for the Respondent to contest the Complainant’s prima facie case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy and to establish rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name by demonstrating, without limitation:

“(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable 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; or

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue”.

The Respondent has not responded and has not asserted rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name with reference to paragraphs 4(c)(i), (ii) or (iii) of the Policy or otherwise. The Panel cannot foresee, on the available evidence, any way in which the Respondent might reasonably establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in the terms of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds for the Complainant under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant must prove under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists four alternative circumstances that shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith by a respondent, namely:

“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location”.

The provisions of paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are without limitation and bad faith may be found alternatively by the Panel.

On the date of screen capture by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolved to a website headed prominently “Allianzuk.com”. The website displayed blocks of link headings designated “Hot Favorites”, “Popular Links” and “Top Links”, each containing subheadings such as “Cheap Renters Insurance”, “Life Insurance Quotes” and “Best Insurance Plans”, respectively. Two prominent advertisements were also displayed.

On the evidence, the Panel finds the website of the disputed domain name to be a pay-per-click operation. The convention is that visitors are offered links referring them to other websites that pay to receive such referrals, and the referring website operator, with other entities involved in the placement and targeting of the links, may expect to receive a share of the revenue so derived. Whilst the Internet pay-per-click business model is common and may generally be entirely legitimate, it cannot be legitimate for the operator of the referring website to attract and refer visitors and thereby create revenue by the appropriation of another’s trademark without consent. The Respondent’s website must reasonably intend to attract visitors by means of the disputed domain name, which features the Complainant’s trademark ALLIANZ followed by “uk”, and further represents that it is in some way endorsed by the Complainant by displaying the Complainant’s trademark on the website. It may reasonably be anticipated that at least some visitors will be confused into thinking they will be taken to, and then have arrived at, a website representing the Complainant’s presence in a United Kingdom context. On the evidence and on balance, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to have been used in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and to have been registered for the bad faith purpose for which it has been used.

The Complainant has produced in evidence emails received by members of the Complainant’s group of companies, the general tone of which is to state that an actual senior executive in London will be visiting shortly with family and asking to be advised of a suitable travel agency. The emails, followed up with an urgent reminder, purport to come from the executive and are signed with authentic-looking name, address and telephone information of the Complainant, except that the originating email address incorporates the disputed domain name and not an authentic email address of the Complainant. It may reasonably be deduced that this has been done in an attempt to find out initially, for some nefarious purpose, the travel agency through which the overseas office places its business.

The true purpose of the subterfuge is of little consequence, however. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy refers not only to a website but to an “other online location”, in this instance the email address set up by the Respondent in the name of the executive, but derived from the disputed domain name, in the form “[executive.name]@allianzuk.com”. This device is found to constitute an attempt to confuse Internet users, namely staff at overseas offices of the Complainant, and to attract them to reply to the emails from the Respondent as though they were from the Complainant, thereby revealing information. It is not realistically conceivable that the Respondent has developed this strategy without some ultimate commercial intent. On these additional grounds the Panel finds it to be more probable than not that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel also finds the Respondent to have registered and used the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, namely the Complainant, under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy (Mission KwaSizabantu v. Benjamin Rost, WIPO Case No. D2000-0279: “The natural meaning of the word ‘competitor’ is one who acts in opposition to another and the context does not imply or demand any restricted meaning such as a commercial or business competitor”).

Accordingly, the Panel finds registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith by the Respondent in the terms of 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 <allianzuk.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dr. Clive N.A. Trotman
Sole Panelist
Date: April 28, 2017