WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

UNIQA Insurance Group AG v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot

Case No. D2019-0334

1. The Parties

Complainant is UNIQA Insurance Group AG of Vienna, Austria, represented by Schönherr Rechtsanwälte GmbH, Austria.

Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, California, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <uniqainsurance.com> is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 13, 2019. On February 13, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 14, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on February 19, 2019.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 20, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 12, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 13, 2019.

The Center appointed Stephanie G. Hartung as the sole panelist in this matter on March 22, 2019. 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. On April 2, 2019, the Panel issued an Administrative Panel Order No. 1 regarding what appears to be a third party offering to transfer the disputed domain name. The Parties did not reach a settlement and the Panel proceeded to issue the decision.

4. Factual Background

Complainant is a public stock listed company organized under the laws of Austria that belongs to the leading insurance groups in Austria and Central and Eastern Europe.

Complainant has provided evidence that it is the registered owner of the following trademarks relating to the designation UNIQA:

- European Union trademark (word mark) UNIQA, European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”), Registration No.: 001132174, Registration Date: August 16, 2000, Status: Active;

- Austrian trademark (word mark) UNIQA, Austrian Patent Office, Registration No.: 179703, Registration Date: December 22, 1998, Status: Active.

Also, Complainant runs a website at “www.uniqagroup.com” in order to promote its business and services in the insurance industry.

Respondent, according to the WhoIs information for the disputed domain name, is a Privacy Service organized under the laws of the United States which has registered the disputed domain name on January 10, 2019. While Complainant has provided evidence that on February 11, 2019, thus right before the filing of this Complaint, the disputed domain name redirected to a typical Pay-Per-Click (PPC) website, by the time of the rendering of this decision the website under the disputed domain name provides for adult content and is set up in the Chinese language.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that due to its comprehensive business and marketing activities and its strong market position, its UNIQA trademark is famous at least in Austria, but also in the Central and Eastern Europe region.

Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to its UNIQA trademark, as it integrates the latter in its entirety and the addition of the generic word “insurance” is insufficient to escape such finding. Also, Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since Complainant is not aware of any rights by or authorization given to or existing relationship with Respondent in connection with the UNIQA trademark. Finally, Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith since (1) the disputed domain name at some point before the filing of this Complaint resolved to a parking page and (2) the use of a privacy shield veiling Respondent’s true identity indicates a bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant carries the burden of proving:

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

(ii) That 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.

Respondent’s default in the case at hand does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant, however, paragraph 5(f) of the Rules provides that if Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute solely based upon the Complaint. Further, the Panel may draw such inferences as are appropriate from Respondent's failure to submit a Response.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates the UNIQA trademark in its entirety. Numerous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see e.g.PepsiCo, Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS Computer Industry (a/k/a EMS), WIPO Case No. D2003-0696). Moreover, it has been held in many UDRP decisions and has become a consensus view among panelists (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8) that the addition of e.g. a descriptive or geographical wording to a trademark in a domain name is normally insufficient, in and of itself, to avoid the finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP. Accordingly, the addition of the descriptive term “insurance”, which even refers to Complainant’s core business, does not dispel the confusing similarity arising from the incorporation of Complainant’s UNIQA trademark in the disputed domain name.

Therefore, Complainant has established the first element under the Policy set forth by paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel is further convinced on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed contentions that Respondent has not made use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor has Respondent been commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor can it be found that Respondent has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof without intent for commercial gain.

Respondent obviously has neither been granted a license nor has it been otherwise authorized by Complainant to use its UNIQA trademark, either as domain name or in any other way. Also, there is no reason to believe that Respondent’s name somehow corresponds with the disputed domain name and Respondent does not appear to have any trademark rights associated with the term “uniqa” on its own. Finally, Respondent obviously has neither used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair purpose. Complainant has evidenced that at some point right before the filing of this Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a typical PPC website showing a variety of hyperlinks some of which were aiming at the insurance market, thus at Complainant’s core business and presumably at Complainant’s UNIQA trademark and its undisputed reputation. UDRP panels agree that using a domain name to host a PPC website does not present a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s trademark or otherwise mislead Internet users (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.9).

Accordingly, Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Having done so, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with appropriate evidence demonstrating such rights or legitimate interest (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1). Given that Respondent has defaulted, it has not met that burden.

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has also satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) and, thus, the second element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finally holds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.

Redirecting the disputed domain name to a typical PPC website showing a variety of hyperlinks aiming at the insurance market, thus at Complainant’s core business, for the purpose of generating PPC revenues, is a clear indication that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s UNIQA trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of this website. Such circumstances are evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The fact that, by the time of the rendering of this decision, the disputed domain redirects to a website set up in the Chinese language which provides for adult content, is not in contrast to such finding. On the contrary, there is obviously no reason apparent as to why Respondent needs to rely on the disputed domain name as such in order to run a Chinese adult content website if not to profit from the undisputed reputation of Complainant’s UNIQA trademark, thus acting 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 <uniqainsurance.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Stephanie G. Hartung
Sole Panelist
Date: April 12, 2019