Allianz SE v. Richard Nelson
Claim Number: FA0703000944335
Complainant is Allianz SE (“Complainant”), represented by Eric
Paulsrud, of Leonard, Street and Deinard Professional
Association,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <allianzgroup.net>, registered with SRSPlus.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Louis E. Condon as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 21, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 22, 2007.
On
On April 2, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 23, 2007 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@allianzgroup.net by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <allianzgroup.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s ALLIANZ GROUP mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <allianzgroup.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <allianzgroup.net> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Allianz SE, holds a trademark registration with
the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the ALLIANZ GROUP
mark (Reg. No. 2,462,437 issued
Respondent registered the <allianzgroup.net>
domain name on
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant has established rights in the ALLIANZ GROUP mark
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the
USPTO. See Vivendi Universal Games v.
XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent’s <allianzgroup.net> domain name is
identical to Complainant’s ALLIANZ GROUP mark because Respondent uses
Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic top-level domain
(“gTLD”) “.net” to the domain name. The
Panel finds that the addition of a gTLD is not a distinguishing difference and
that Respondent’s <allianzgroup.net>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Little Six, Inc. v. Domain For
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the <allianzgroup.net>
domain name. Complainant’s assertion
establishes a prima facie case, which shifts the burden to Respondent to
prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See
G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel assumes that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests here because Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint. See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). The Panel will evaluate all available evidence to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the <allianzgroup.net> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the <allianzgroup.net> domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s website in order for Respondent to obtain consumers’ personal financial information. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <allianzgroup.net> domain name constitutes phishing, which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Nelson, FA 241972 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 29, 2004) (finding that using a domain name in a fraudulent scheme to deceive Internet users into providing their credit card and personal information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also HOPE worldwide, Ltd. v. Jin, FA 320379 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2004) (finding that a domain name that “is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, redirects Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s website, and is used to acquire personal information from Complainant’s potential associates fraudulently” does not fall within the parameters of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)).
Finally, Respondent offers no evidence and none is present
in the record to indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the <allianzgroup.net> domain name. Respondent’s WHOIS information identifies
Respondent as “Richard Nelson.”
Therefore, Respondent has failed to establish rights or legitimate
interests in the <allianzgroup.net>
domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See
Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent has registered and is using the <allianzgroup.net> domain name, which is identical to Complainant’s ALLIANZ GROUP mark, to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s website in order to obtain consumers’ personal financial information. The Panel finds that such use constitutes phishing and is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2004) (finding that using a domain name that “is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, redirects Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s billing website, and is used to fraudulently acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients” is evidence of bad faith registration and use); see also HOPE worldwide, Ltd. v. Jin, FA 320379 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2004) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith because it redirected Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s website and was used to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s potential associates).
Respondent is using the <allianzgroup.net> domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s website to obtain consumers’ personal financial information for the assumed profit of Respondent. The Panel finds that, because Respondent’s domain name is identical to Complainant’s ALLIANZ GROUP mark, Internet users may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the website. Presumably, Respondent is profiting from this confusion. As such, Respondent’s use of the <allianzgroup.net> domain name to obtain personal financial information from consumers constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Labs., D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent's use of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that the complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site); see also H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto., FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) through the respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent website by using the complainant’s famous marks and likeness).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <allianzgroup.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated: May 8, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum