WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Stichting Menzis Beheer / AnderZorg N.V. v. Robert Roller, Webzone Capital Inc. Case No. DNL2018-0044 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Stichting Menzis Beheer of Wageningen, the Netherlands / AnderZorg N.V. of Groningen, the Netherlands, represented by KienhuisHoving advocaten en notarissen, the Netherlands.

The Respondent is Robert Roller, Webzone Capital Inc. of Panama, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with SIDN through Gransy s.r.o. d/b/a/ . 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 17, 2018. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to SIDN a request for registrar verification in connection, with the disputed domain name. On July 18, 2018, SIDN transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Dispute Resolution Regulations for .nl Domain Names (the "Regulations").

In accordance with the Regulations, articles 5.1 and 16.4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 20, 2018. In accordance with the Regulations, article 7.1, the due date for Response was August 9, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on August 13, 2018.

The Center appointed Willem Hoorneman as the panelist in this matter on August 24, 2018. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The panelist has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required to ensure compliance with the Regulations, article 9.2. 4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a Dutch health insurance company and is holder of various trademarks comprising the words and/or figurative representation of ANDERZORG.

Among these trademark registrations, the following trademarks designate the Netherlands: European Union trademark registration no. 003804531 (registered in November 18, 2005), Benelux trademark registration no. 0785346 (registered in April 6, 2006), Benelux trademark registration no. 0785347 (registered in April 6, 2006), Benelux trademark registration no. 0785348 (registered in April 6, 2006), Benelux trademark registration no. 0874725 (registered in April 12, 2010), Benelux trademark registration no. 0933207 (registered in May 10, 2013), Benelux trademark registration no. 0725554 (registered in October 7 2002), Benelux trademark registration no. 0806278 (registered in November 7, 2006), Benelux trademark registration no. 0729694 (registered in January 13, 2003) and Benelux trademark registration no. 0931192 (registered in April 10, 2013). All these above mentioned trademarks comprise a combination of ANDERZORG with another word/figurative element. Further, the European Union registration 003804531 and Benelux registration 0725554 exist, both only comprising the word ANDERZORG.

Hereinafter, the above trademarks are collectively being referred to as "Trademarks".

Furthermore, the Complainant is the registrant of the domain name

The Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on May 4, 2015, and resolves to a website containing sponsored links relating to inter alia health insurances. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant is the rightful holder of the Trademarks. The Domain Name infringes its Trademarks and trade name by incorporating the Trademarks and trade name ANDERZORG entirely. The Complainant asserts that the registration of the Domain Name by the Respondent prevents the Complainant from using the Domain Name for its customer portal.

The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, as the Respondent appears not to own or use any trade name, trademark, personal name or name of an association or foundation relating to "mijnanderzorg".

Moreover, the Complainant claims that the use of the Domain Name by the Respondent is in bad faith. Firstly, the Complainant asserts that the Domain Name has been or is being used for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant's activities, because the Domain Name contains links to websites of competitors of the Complainant. Secondly, the Complainant claims that the Respondent probably profits by doing so. Finally, the Complainant submits that the Respondent's registration and use of this confusingly similar Domain Name may have a negative impact on the protection of sensitive personal data. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings

Pursuant to article 2.1 of the Regulations, to be successful the Complainant's request to