WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

DZ BANK AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Andris Tukiss

Case No. D2020-3115

1. The Parties

The Complainant is DZ BANK AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank, Germany, represented by Bettinger Scheffelt Kobiako von Gamm, Germany.

The Respondent is WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Andris Tukiss, Latvia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <dzbank.info> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 19, 2020. On November 20, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 20, 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 November 23, 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 November 24, 2020. The Respondent sent two email communications for possible settlement both received by the Center on November 23, 2020. On December 2, 2020, the Complainant requested to continue with the proceeding.

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 December 3, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 23, 2020. The Center commenced Panel Appointment Process on January 4, 2021.

The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on January 8, 2021. 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 acts as central bank, corporate bank, and parent holding company of the DZ BANK Group. As a central bank, the Complainant serves as the subsidiary partner of about 850 local cooperative banks. As an internationally oriented corporate bank, the Complainant serves SME customers directly and provides them with corporate finance products to fund both operations and investments. In investment banking, the Complainant is specialized in fixed income and private-customer-focused securities services.

The Complainant has provided evidence of rights in the DZ BANK trademarks, which enjoy protection through numerous registrations.

The Complainant has registered, inter alia, the following trademarks:

- DZ BANK (word), European Union Trademark No. 004994133, registered on July 26, 2007;
- DZ BANK BANK ON GERMANY (word), European Union Trademark No. 006813224, registered on February 6, 2009; and
- DZ BANK (word), International Trade Mark No. 781223, registered on November 13, 2001.

The Complainant is also the registered owner of numerous domain names including the term “DZ BANK”, inter alia <dzbank.de> and <dzbank.com>.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 29, 2020. Currently the corresponding website is not active. However, from the document provided by the Complainant it appears that the disputed domain name previously resolved to a pay-per-click page with links to other financial institutions and financial service providers that compete with the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant claims that:

(a) the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark;
(b) the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate rights in the disputed domain name; and
(c) the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent sent only two very short emails to the Center. The first one proposed to solve the present dispute by transferring the disputed domain name to the Complainant for the price of USD 500, and the second one provided a link to a listing of the disputed domain name in Afternic.com, again with the price of USD 500.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The only difference between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s DZ BANK trademark is the omission of a space and the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.info”. The Panel agrees with the Complainant’s assertion that these differences are irrelevant in assessing the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name.

Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the DZ BANK trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

This Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the name “dzbank” or by any similar name. The Respondent has no connection to or affiliation with the Complainant and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or register any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a pay-per-click page with links to other financial institutions and financial service providers that compete with the Complainant. The Respondent has not come forward with any explanation that demonstrates any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In fact, in the two very short emails sent in response to the complaint, the Respondent did not give any reason for and/or explanation of his/her choice to register the disputed domain name, or even any proof of a concurrent right on a name corresponding to it. Also, the Respondent neither denied nor rejected any of the Complainant’s contentions, nor did it claim any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel, based on the evidence presented, accepts and agrees with the Complainant’s contentions that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.

Indeed, the Complainant gives several bases for its contention that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Respondent could not have been unaware of the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks when registering the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered years after the Complainant’s trademarks.

The Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect to a PPC website with links to financial service providers competing with those of the Complainant constitutes a disruption of the Complainant’s business and qualifies as bad faith use under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy. Furthermore, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website, and qualifies also as bad faith use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The fact that the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website does not preclude a finding of bad faith.

Finally, the Panel notes that the Respondent, in its emails to the Center, instead of claiming any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and/or rejecting any of the Complainant’s contentions, preferred to try to sell the disputed domain name for an amount that is in excess of the out-of-pocket costs of its registration.

Accordingly, the Panel finds, based on the evidence presented, that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has satisfied 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 <dzbank.info> be transferred to the Complainant.

Fabrizio Bedarida
Sole Panelist
Date: January 19, 2021