Generali Global Assistance, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico
Claim Number: FA2304002041303
Complainant is Generali Global Assistance, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Yuo-Fong C. Amato of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <generalitraveinsurance.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 24, 2023; Forum received payment on April 24, 2023.
On April 25, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <generalitraveinsurance.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.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 25, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 15, 2023 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@generalitraveinsurance.com. Also on April 25, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 17, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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
1. Respondent’s <generalitraveinsurance.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <generalitraveinsurance.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <generalitraveinsurance.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant, Generali Global Assistance, Inc. offers financial and insurance services. Complainant holds a registration for the GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark with multiple trademark agencies, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 5,675,885, registered February 12, 2019).
Respondent registered the <generalitraveinsurance.com> domain name on April 18, 2023, and uses it to resolve to various hyperlinks.
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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark through registration with the USPTO. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”)
Respondent’s <generalitraveinsurance.com> domain name uses the GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark, simply misspelling “travel” and adding the “.com” gTLD. The exclusion of a letter to create a simple misspelling and the addition of the “.com” gTLD does not sufficiently differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Klein Tools, Inc. v. chenxinqi, FA 1617328 (Forum July 6, 2018) (finding that the <klentools.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the KLEIN TOOLS mark as it contains the entire KLEIN TOOLS mark and merely omits the letter “l” and adds the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”)). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <generalitraveinsurance.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark.
The Panel find that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <generalitraveinsurance.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights 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); see also Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”)
Complainant claims that Respondent does not use the <generalitravelinurance.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses it to display clickable options. Using a disputed domain name to display hyperlinks 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 Harry Winston, Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1749276 (Forum Oct, 18, 2017) (holding that use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to a rotating series of third-party websites, some of which attempt to install malware on users’ computers, does not show the respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.). Complainant provides screenshot evidence showing that the webpage at <generalitravelinurance.com> display s hyperlinks purporting to be related to travel insurance. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Complainant also asserts that Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the <generalitraveinsurance.com> domain name is further demonstrated by it typosquatting. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Assocation v. Pham Dinh Nhut, FA1502001605819 (Forum Apr. 17, 2015) (“Respondent’s acts of typosquatting provide additional evidence that respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”)
The Panel find that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the <generalitraveinsurance.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent is engaged in typosquatting. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sep. 7, 2018) (“Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use.”)
The Panel also finds bad faith in Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host hyperlinks related to travel insurance, disrupting Complainant’s business, which constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
The Panel find that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <generalitraveinsurance.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: May 18, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page