Allianz Life Insurance Company of
Claim Number: FA0612000870012
Complainant is Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America (“Complainant”), represented by Ruth
Rivard, of Leonard, Street and Deinard Professional
Association,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <alliianzlife.com>, registered with Compana, 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.
Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On January 8, 2007, Compana, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <alliianzlife.com> domain name is registered with Compana, Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Compana, Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Compana, Llc 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 January 11, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 31, 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@alliianzlife.com 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 <alliianzlife.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANZ and ALLIANZ LIFE marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <alliianzlife.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <alliianzlife.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Allianz Life Insurance Company of
Respondent registered the <alliianzlife.com> 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 to the ALLIANZ and
ALLIANZ LIFE marks through registration with the USPTO. See Innomed
Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171
(Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent’s <alliianzlife.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANZ and ALLIANZ LIFE
marks because Respondent’s domain name simply misspells Complainant’s mark,
inserting a second “i” in the ALLIANZ mark, in order to capitalize on a common
mistake made by Internet users attempting to enter Complainant’s domain name
into their web browser. The Panel finds
this misspelling constitutes typosquatting, which does not alter the mark
sufficiently to negate the confusingly similar aspects of Respondent’s domain
name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Seocho, FA 149187 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
By asserting that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the <alliianzlife.com>
domain name, Complainant has made a prima facie case. Therefore, the burden shifts to Respondent to
prove that it does not have rights or legitimate interest in the disputed
domain name where Respondent fails to respond to the complaint. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA
118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent’s misspelling of
Complainant’s mark constitutes typosquatting which alone is evidence
that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that
the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the disputed
domain names because it “engaged in the practice of typosquatting
by taking advantage of Internet users who attempt to access Complainant's
<indymac.com> website but mistakenly misspell Complainant's mark by
typing the letter ‘x’ instead of the letter ‘c’”); see also Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Zuccarini,
D2000-0330 (WIPO June 7, 2000) (finding that fair use does not apply where the
domain names are misspellings of the complainant's mark); see also Diners
Club Int’l Ltd. v. Domain Admin******It's all in the name******, FA 156839
(Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s <wwwdinersclub.com> domain name, a typosquatted version of
the complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark, was evidence in and of itself that the
respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name vis
á vis the complainant).
In addition, Complainant
alleges that Respondent is using the <alliianzlife.com>
domain name to redirect internet users to Respondent’s website displaying links
to websites offering Complainant’s products as well as websites offering
competing goods and services.
Respondent’s use of the domain name to display Complainant’s and
competitors’ links is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering
of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See
TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31,
2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s
marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links,
some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide
offering of goods or services); see also Wells
Fargo & Co. v. Lin Shun Shing, FA
205699 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that using a domain name to
direct Internet traffic to a website featuring pop-up advertisements and links
to various third-party websites is neither a bona fide offering of goods
or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use
under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because the registrant presumably receives
compensation for each misdirected Internet user).
Finally, Respondent has offered no
evidence and no evidence is present in the record suggesting that Respondent is
commonly known by the <alliianzlife.com>
domain name. Respondent’s WHOIS
information identifies the Respondent as “Manila Industries”. As a result, Respondent has failed to
establish the rights or legitimate interest in the <alliianzlife.com> domain name under Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA
96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent has registered and is using the <alliianzlife.com> domain name, which
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANZ and ALLIANZ LIFE marks, in
order to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s website displaying links to
Complainant’s competitors and to Complainant’s goods and services. The Panel finds that such use constitutes
disruption of Complainant’s business and is evidence of bad faith registration
and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See
EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns,
D2000-1368 (
Further, Respondent is using the <alliianzlife.com> domain name to redirect Internet users who misspell Complainant’s mark to its own website. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <alliianzlife.com> domain name constitutes typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball League, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … is the intentional misspelling of words with [the] intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.”); see also Dermalogica, Inc. v. Domains to Develop, FA 175201 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2003) (finding that the <dermatalogica.com> domain name was a “simple misspelling” of the complainant's DERMALOGICA mark which indicated typosquatting and bad faith pursuant to Policy 4 ¶ (a)(iii)).
Finally, Respondent is using the <alliianzlife.com> domain name to redirect confused
internet users to Respondent’s website displaying links to both competing goods
and services as well as Complainant’s goods and services. Presumably, Respondent is profiting from this
confusion. The Panel finds that
Respondent’s use of the <alliianzlife.com>
domain name to offer competing goods and services constitutes bad faith
registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See
AltaVista Co. v. Krotov,
D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)
where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to
third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s
services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes); see also Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's
prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to
Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from
the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <alliianzlife.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: February 19, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum