national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Allianz SE v. Richard Nelson

Claim Number: FA0703000944335

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Allianz SE (“Complainant”), represented by Eric Paulsrud, of Leonard, Street and Deinard Professional Association, 150 South 5th Street, Suite 2300, Minneapolis, MN 55402.  Respondent is Richard Nelson (“Respondent”), 130-8191 Westminster Highway Box 276, Richmond, BC V6X 1A7, CA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <allianzgroup.net>, registered with SRSPlus.

 

PANEL

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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 March 21, 2007, SRSPlus confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <allianzgroup.net> domain name is registered with SRSPlus and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  SRSPlus has verified that Respondent is bound by the SRSPlus registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

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 April 26, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon as Panelist.

 

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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

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.

 

FINDINGS

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 June 19, 2001).  Complainant has used the ALLIANZ GROUP mark in connection with its life insurance agencies and the international sale of its line of insurance and financial services, including investment services.  Complainant has registered the <allianz.com> and <allianzgroup.com> domain names, which it uses in connection with the international sale of its financial and insurance services.

 

Respondent registered the <allianzgroup.net> domain name on December 12, 2006.  Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s website in order for Respondent to obtain consumers’ personal financial information.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

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 Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see also Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”).

 

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 Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001) (finding that <mysticlake.net> is plainly identical to the complainant’s MYSTIC LAKE trademark and service mark); see also Nike, Inc. v. Coleman, D2000-1120 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that the domain name <nike.net> is identical to the complainant’s famous NIKE mark).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

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 Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent.  Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”).

 

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 Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’  Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

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.

 

DECISION

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