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 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 “” 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 Respo