WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Swiss Life AG and Swiss Life Intellectual Property Management AG v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / 耕刘

Case No. D2020-2319

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Swiss Life AG and Swiss Life Intellectual Property Management AG, Switzerland, represented by Scan Avocats AARPI, France.

The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America (“United States”) / 耕刘 , China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

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

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 4, 2020. On September 4, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 8, 2020, 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 September 9, 2020 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 amendment to the Complaint on September 30, 2020. The Respondent sent an email informal email on September 9, 2020.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 October 1, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 21, 2020. Apart from the email submitted on September 9, 2020, the Respondent did not file a formal response.

The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on November 10, 2020. 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 Complainants are Swiss Life AG and Swiss Life Intellectual Property Management AG, both incorporated under the laws of Switzerland with their legal seat in Zurich, Switzerland. Swiss Life Intellectual Property Management AG is a subsidiary of Swiss Life AG and responsible for managing all their intellectual property.

The Complainant Swiss Life AG is one the largest life insurance in Switzerland and one of the largest of Europe, offering also pensions and financial solutions. The Complainant operates in several countries and can trace its history back to 1857. The Complainant adopted its current name in 2002.

The Complainant owns several registrations and applications for the SWISS LIFE trademark, as well as for domain names incorporating SWISS LIFE, covering a wide range of services, including but not limited to life insurance and savings, asset management and all other financial services. Proofs of these registrations were duly produced in the Complaint as annexes D1 to D3.

The Complainant also owns a wide number of domain name bearing the trademark SWISS LIFE under the available Top Levels, that market the SWISS LIFE products and services.

The disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers a variety of medical and health-related products, and the Respondent is apparently located in China.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 30, 2020.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainants contend that the disputed domain name <swisselife.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ mark registered and used worldwide. In fact, the expression integrating the disputed domain name is “SWISS LIFE” with the insertion of an “e” between the words, resulting in an ensemble that is virtually identical to the Complainants’ registered mark.

The Respondent chose to compose the disputed domain name in a way that the renowned mark owned by the Complainants is clearly identified, as the letter inserted between the words SWISS and LIFE does not alter the pronunciation.

The Complainants own several registrations worldwide for trademark SWISS LIFE, as well as several domain name bearing this mark, as evidence by annexes D1 to D3 to the Complaint. Also robust of the renown of the mark SWISS LIFE was produced, as stated by annexes E to I of the Complaint.

The disputed domain name registered by the Respondent – a reproduction of the Complainants’ registered mark with the insertion of the letter “e” – evidence an intention of misleading the Internet users to a website that offers medical products, but is not yet operative, despite the pictures and data displayed.

The Complainants also allege that the website at the disputed domain name will mislead Internet users by leading them to phishing scams, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent sent an e-mail to the Center on September 9, 2020, stating that he or she was not aware of the Complaint, that he or she was not informed when the domain name was bought and asks for an orientation on what to do.

The Center further notified the Complaint to the Respondent, with all necessary information on the dispute and on how to proceed and until when to do it. Nevertheless, no further communication was received from the Respondent until the Response’s deadline of October 21, 2020.

6. Discussion and Findings

The Policy, in its paragraph 4(a), determines that three elements must be present and duly proven by a complainant to obtain relief. These elements are:

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

ii. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name; and

iii. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Regarding the first element of the Policy, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainants have presented evidence of having rights in the mark SWISS LIFE, registered throughout the world. In addition, the Complainants have been providing a full range of insurance and related services worldwide for more than 160 years and under the SWISS LIFE for almost twenty years.

Further, the Panel finds that disputed domain name <swisselife.com> is indeed confusingly similar to the trademark belonging to the Complainants, since this mark is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent.

The insertion of the letter “e” between “swiss” and “life” in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the mark SWISS LIFE, which is reproduced in its entirety. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

Hence, the Panel concludes that the first of the element of the Policy has been satisfied by the Complainants in this case.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel understands that the mark SWISS LIFE is associated with the Complainants, since it is not only registered as a mark in its name, but also has been used to identify the services rendered by the Complainants for over a century.

Further, the Complainants provided evidence of the fame of the mark SWISS LIFE and the full range of insurance and financial services rendered under this name all over the world. Hence, the Panel considers that the Respondent, in all likelihood, could not be unaware of the mark SWISS LIFE, and its direct relation to the Complainants.

In fact, the Complainants presented evidence that the disputed domain name has been used to offer medical and health-related products.

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainants have made a prima facie showing of the Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. This has not been rebutted by the Respondent, despite the presentation of a very brief response.

The Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name for offering of medical and health-related products but the web page is not concluded and not fully active. In addition, the referred web page shows the use of a different term “Swissliff” and not the expression adopted in the disputed domain name.

Consequently, the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied affiliation. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

Thus, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. For this reason, the Panel believes that the Complainants have satisfied the second element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Given the circumstances of this case, the facts outlined in sections A and B above can evidence the Respondent’s bad faith in the registration and use of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name was registered to clearly mislead the consumers – hence the adoption of the letter “e” in the middle of the trademark SWISS LIFE, which otherwise is reproduced in its entirety.

The Respondent intended to give an overall impression that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainants, and the Panel accepts that the disputed domain name seems to be making use of the Complainant’s renowned trademark for unlawful purposes. The incomplete web site, offering products that cannot be bought and the depicting of a term that is also confusingly similar to the one of the Complainants, “Swissliff”, lead to this conclusion.

Also the informal email submitted by the Respondent, and the further silence after the complaint had been notified with complete information on the case can be seen as further evidence of bad faith.

The Panel, thus, finds for the Complainant under the third element 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 <swisselife.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Date: November 24, 2020