WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-1960 for allianzfinancialservice.com
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Allianz SE v. humble jambo Case No. D2019-1960 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Allianz SE, Germany, represented internally.
The Respondent is humble jambo, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 12, 2019. On August 12, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 12 and 13, 2019, 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 August 13, 2019, 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 amended Complaint on August 13, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 19, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 8, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 9, 2019.
The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on September 12, 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. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a German parent company of one of one of the largest insurance groups, headquartered in Munich, Germany. The Complainant operates in several countries and can trace its history back to the 1890, when it was created in Berlin under the name “Allianz Versicherungs AG”.
Over decades the Complainant has built goodwill in the mark ALLIANZ and to a family of marks composed by this word.
The Complainant owns several registrations and applications for the ALLIANZ trademark, as well as for domain names incorporating “allianz”, covering a wide range of services, including but not limited to property and casualty insurance, life insurance and savings, asset management and all other financial services. Evidence of these registrations were duly produced in the Complaint as Annex D.
The Complainant also owns a wide number of domain names bearing the mark ALLIANZ under the available Top-Level Domains, registered under the name of an affiliate company.
The disputed domain name resolves to a website that bears the Complainant’s mark and offers loan services. The disputed domain name was registered on January 5, 2019. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks registered and used worldwide. In fact, the only distinctive word integrating the disputed domain name is “allianz”, which is identical to the Complainant’s registered mark.
The expression chosen by the Respondent to compose the disputed domain name together with “allianz” is “financial service”, which is related to the Complainant’s main activities. The descriptive terms do not negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. On the contrary, they lead to confusion, given the presence of the Complainant’s mark.
The Complainant owns several registrations worldwide for the trademark ALLIANZ, as well as several domain names bearing this mark, as evidence by Annex D to the Complaint. Also evidence of the renown of the mark ALLIANZ was produced in Annexes E to I of the Complaint.
The disputed domain name adopted by the Respondent – a reproduction of the Complainant’s registered mark associated with a descriptive expression – shows a clear intention of misleading the Internet users to its website – that offers loan services and even bears the Complainant’s word and design mark ALLIANZ. The Complainant underlines that the disputed domain name gives the impression that it is in all ways associated with the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 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 of the elements, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has presented adequate proof of having rights in the mark ALLIANZ, registered throughout the world. In addition, the Complainant has been providing a full range of insurance and related services worldwide for decades and under the ALLIANZ mark for more than a century.
Further, the Panel finds that disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark belonging to the Complainant, since this mark is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent with the addition of descriptive terms.
Hence, the Panel concludes that the first of the elements in the Policy has been satisfied by the Complainant in this dispute. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel understands that the mark ALLIANZ is naturally associated with the Complainant, since it is not only registered as a mark in its name, but also has been used to identify the services rendered by the Complainant for over a century.
Further, the Complainant provided sufficient evidence of the fame of the mark ALLIANZ and the full range of insurance and financial services rendered under this name to its clients all over the world. Hence, the Panel considers that the Respondent, in all likelihood, could not be unaware of the mark ALLIANZ, and its direct relation to the Complainant.
In fact, the Complainant presented evidence that the disputed domain name has been used to offer loan services in a web page that even bears the word and design mark from the Complainant.
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. This has not been rebutted by the Respondent.
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 Complainant has satisfied the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It is clear to the Panel that the Respondent has in all probability registered the disputed domain name with the purpose of taking advantage of the Complainant’s mark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was likely registered to mislead consumers – hence the addition of the terms “financial service”. Further, the additional terms can surely be considered an allusion to the Complainant’s core business, a fact from which the Respondent may well profit by giving Internet users the impression that the disputed domain name belongs to the Complainant. The Respondent intended to give an overall impression that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant, and the Panel accepts that the disputed domain name may be intended for illegitimate purposes.
All the points above lead to the conclusion by this Panel that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has also proved 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 be transferred to the Complainant.
Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Date: September 26, 2019

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy