Generali Global Assistance, Inc. v. Domain Administrator
Claim Number: FA2204001992147
Complainant is Generali Global Assistance, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Yuo-Fong C. Amato of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <generalitravelclaims.com>, registered with Sav.Com, Llc.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 13, 2022; the Forum received payment on April 13, 2022.
On April 14, 2022, Sav.Com, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <generalitravelclaims.com> domain name is registered with Sav.Com, Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sav.Com, Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sav.Com, Llc registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On April 15, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 5, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@generalitravelclaims.com. Also on April 15, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 5, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the 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
Complainant operates as part of a publically traded financial institution. Complainant has rights in the GENERALI mark through its registration in the with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. 1,731,611, registered Nov 10, 1992). Respondent’s <generalitravelclaims.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates complainant’s mark and adds the additional terms “TRAVEL CLAIMS”, which are commonly used in the insurance industry, along with the “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interest in the <generalitravelclaims.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its GENERALI mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent uses the domain name for commercial use as it describes and links to insurance services competitive to Complainant’s.
Respondent registered and uses the <generalitravelclaims.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark. Respondent uses the disputed mark to disrupt Complainant’s business and attempts to divert Internet users searching for Complainant to the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant operates as part of a publically traded financial institution. Complainant has rights in the GENERALI mark through its registration in the with the USPTO (Reg. 1,731,611, registered Nov 10, 1992). Respondent’s <generalitravelclaims.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates complainant’s mark and adds the additional terms “TRAVEL CLAIMS”, which are commonly used in the insurance industry, along with the “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent registered the <generalitravelclaims.com> domain name on March 29, 2022.
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interest in the <generalitravelclaims.com> domain name. Respondent uses the domain name for commercial use as it describes and links to insurance services competitive to Complainant’s.
Respondent registered and uses the <generalitravelclaims.com> domain name in bad faith.
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."
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.
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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Respondent’s <generalitravelclaims.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GENERALI mark as it incorporates complainant’s mark and adds the additional terms “TRAVEL CLAIMS”, which are commonly used in the insurance industry, along with the “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <generalitravelclaims.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in GENERALI mark. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Mohamed elkassaby, FA 1801815 (Forum Sept. 17, 2018) (“The WHOIS lists “Mohamed elkassaby” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Redacted for Privacy” based out of Chicago, Illinois. There is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the GENERALI mark. Therefore, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to describe and offer links to insurance services competitive to Complainant’s. Past panels have found that use of a disputed domain name to promote links in competition with a complainant’s services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. See CheapCaribbean.com, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1411001589962 (Forum Jan. 1, 2015) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <cheepcaribbean.com> name to promote links in competition with Complainant’s travel agency services does not fall within Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)’s bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it amount to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use described in Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Respondent registered and uses the <generalitravelclaims.com> domain name in bad faith by using the domain to disrupt Complainant’s business. Past panels have found that offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another. See American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s hosting of links to Complainant’s competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)”).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name in bad faith by attempting to divert Internet users looking for Complainant for commercial gain. Attempting to commercially benefit from a disputed domain name by diverting internet users to a resolving website with parked, competing pay-per-click links has been found by past panels to constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet, Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent and the complainant were in the same line of business and the respondent was using a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s FITNESS WAREHOUSE mark to attract Internet users to its <efitnesswarehouse.com> domain name).
Complainant further argues that Respondent’s attempt to conceal its identity is evidence that the disputed domain name is used in bad faith. Past panels have found a contribution to bad faith in respondent’s registration of the domain name where the respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information. See Phoenix Niesley-Lindgren Watt v. Contact Privacy Inc., Customer 0150049249, FA 1800231 (Forum Sept. 6. 2018) (“In a commercial context, using a WHOIS privacy service raises the rebuttable presumption of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. An honest merchant in the marketplace does not generally try to conceal the merchant’s identity. Good faith requires honesty in fact. Respondent did nothing to rebut this presumption of bad faith. Therefore, the Panel will find bad faith registration and use for this reason.”). Here, Respondent’s registry information was private, only showing “Redacted for Privacy” as the Registrant organization. Therefore, Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <generalitravelclaims.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 26, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page