Allianz SE v. Registrant of xn--49s296f.xn--3ds443g / Rich Premium Limited / Domain Administrator
Claim Number: FA1409001579170
Complainant: Allianz SE of Munich, Germany.
Respondent: Registrant of xn--49s296f.xn--3ds443g / Rich Premium Limited / Domain Administrator of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: TLD REGISTRY LIMITED
Registrars: 1API GmbH
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Peter Müller, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: September 11, 2014
Commencement: September 11, 2014
Default Date: September 26, 2014
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
No multiple Complainants or Respondents and no multiple disputed domain names require dismissal.
Findings of Fact:
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6. requires the Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
[URS 1.2.6.1.] The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
(i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
(ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
(iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.
The Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is registered owner of numerous trademarks for 安联, as well as documents to show that the trademarks are in current use.
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s 安联 Mark. It is well established that the specific top level domain name is generally not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s 安联 Mark and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
[1.2.6.2.] The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name is not used in connection with an active website.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest to the disputed domain name, that it holds no trademark registrations for any “Allianz” mark, that it has never received any other form of authorization from the Complainant to make use of the mark, that it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that the Complainant’s prior rights bar the Respondent from being known by the disputed domain name.
The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
[1.2.6.3.] The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that it is the parent company of one of the oldest and largest international insurance and financial services groups which serves approximately 78,000,000 customers in over 70 countries, including China, with approximately 142,000 employees. It states that ALLIANZ is a well-known trademark used for over 100 years and has been ranked 63 in the Best Global Brands 2013 from Interbrand, one of the world leading brand consultants. It further contends that it is evident that Respondent has an intention to misappropriate the Complainant’s trademark, take unfair advantage of Complainant’s goodwill and of current market conditions, and that the Chinese market, clients, intermediaries and cooperation partners of Allianz Group will perceive 安联.在线as a customer relationship concept of Allianz Group. It states that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with the sole purpose of resale to the Complainant or to third parties who intend to misuse the valuable trademark and name of the Complainant for their own commercial purposes, and that the disputed domain name has already been offered for sale on onlydomains.com.
The Complainant’s 安联 Mark was validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse prior to the registration of the dispute disputed domain name. As a result, the Respondent must have been given a trademark claims notice of the Complainant’s rights and therefore registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. However, the Complainant has not provided sufficient evidence that the disputed domain name has in fact is being used in bad faith as well. At present, the disputed domain name is inactive. The documentary evidence provided by the Complainant with regard to the Respondent’s asserted offer to sell the disputed domain name does not support a finding in this regard as it only shows information from “onlydomains.com” that the disputed domain name is registered. No further claim with regard to bad faith use was made.
Given that the URS is not intended for use in any proceedings with open questions of fact, but only clear cases of trademark abuse, the Examiner finds that the Complainant has not satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
No abuse or material falsehood.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has NOT demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be RETURNED to the control of Respondent.
<安联.在线>
Peter Müller, Examiner
Dated: October 1, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page