Generali Global Assistance, Inc. v. YangZhiChao
Claim Number: FA2203001989735
Complainant is Generali Global Assistance, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Yuo-Fong C. Amato of Gordon & Rees, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is YangZhiChao (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <generaliravelinsurance.com>, registered with 22net, Inc.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 25, 2022; the Forum received payment on March 25, 2022. The Complaint was received in both English and Chinese.
On March 28, 2022, 22net, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <generaliravelinsurance.com> domain name is registered with 22net, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 22net, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the 22net, Inc. 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 March 29, 2022, the Forum served the Chinese language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 18, 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@generaliravelinsurance.com. Also on March 29, 2022, the Chinese and English language 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 April 21, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. Therefore, after considering the circumstance of the present case including the fact that Respondent has failed to object to going forward in English, the Panel finds that the instant proceeding should be conducted in English.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Generali Global Assistance, Inc., provides various insurance, banking and investment related services across the globe.
Complainant has rights in the GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark based on registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)’
Respondent’s <generaliravelinsurance.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark as it creates a visually similar misspelling of the mark by omitting the letter “T” in TRAVEL.
Respondent does not have rights and legitimate interests in the <generaliravelinsurance.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the at-issue domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses the domain to distribute malware. Furthermore, the disputed domain name constitutes typosquatting.
Respondent registered and uses the <generaliravelinsurance.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to distribute malware. Furthermore, the disputed domain name constitutes typosquatting.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark.
Complainant’s rights in GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE existed prior to Respondent’s registration of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website displaying pay-per-click links including links that distribute malware.
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”).
Complainant has rights in a mark that is confusingly similar to the at-issue domain name.
Complainant shows that it has a USPTO registration for its GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 <generaliravelinsurance.com> domain name contains Complainant’s GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE trademark less its domain name impermissible spaces and with its “T” deleted. The at-issue domain name concludes with the “.com” top-level. The differences between Respondent’s at-issue domain name and Complainant’s mark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds <generaliravelinsurance.com> to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. zhang qin, FA 1626511 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding, “The relevant comparison then resolves to the trademark, TWITCH, with the term, ‘titch,’ which, as can be readily seen, merely removes the letter ‘w’ from the trademark. In spite of that omission the compared integers remain visually and aurally very similar and so Panel finds them to be confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy.”).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
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. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
The WHOIS information for <generaliravelinsurance.com> identifies the domain name’s registrant as “YangZhiChao” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence showing that Respondent is commonly known by the <generaliravelinsurance.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <generaliravelinsurance.com> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 2011001919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) (“Here, the WHOIS information lists “er nong wu” as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”)
Respondent uses <generaliravelinsurance.com> to address a website displaying links to malware. Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ceridian Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc., FA 1259927 (Forum June 23, 2009) (finding that a respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website which attempts to download computer viruses “failed to create any semblance of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)”). Likewise, using the <generaliravelinsurance.com> domain name to host pay-per-click hyperlinks, regardless of the nature of their target webpages, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See McGuireWoods LLP v. Mykhailo Loginov / Loginov Enterprises d.o.o, FA1412001594837 (Forum Jan. 22, 2015) (“The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to feature parked hyperlinks containing links in competition with Complainant’s legal services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
The at-issue domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent uses its confusingly similar <generaliravelinsurance.com> domain name to address a website displaying pay-per-click hyperlinks to third-parties. Using the confusingly similar domain name in such a manner shows Respondent’s bad faith disruption of Complainant’s business and Respondent’s attempt to attract internet users for commercial under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Lenovo (Beijing) Limited Corporation China v. jeonggon seo, FA1411001591638 (Forum Jan. 16, 2015) (finding that where the complainant operated in the computer industry and the respondent used the disputed domain name to offer competing computer related links, the respondent was disrupting the complainant’s business offerings in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also 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). That some hyperlinks reference malware further shows Respondent’s bad faith. See eNom, Incorporated v. Muhammad Enoms General delivery / Enoms.com has been registered just few days after Enom.com, therefore could not have been regstere, FA1505001621663 (Forum July 2, 2015) (“In addition, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to install malware on Internet users’ devices. The Panel finds that this is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Moreover, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the malformed string in a domain name hoping that internet users will accidently type such string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark and/or hopes that some internet users will misread the misspelled trademark laden domain name and confuse it with the domain name’s target trademark. Although Complainant’s GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE trademark’s “T” is omitted, Complainant’s trademark may nevertheless be presumed and its misspelling overlooked when reading the <generaliravelinsurance.com> domain name. Respondent’s inconsequential misspelling of GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE within Respondent’s <generaliravelinsurance.com> domain name is indicative of Respondent’s desire to use the domain name to inappropriately exploit Complainant’s trademark. Respondent’s typosquatting, in itself, is evidence of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also, Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Skander, FA 135598 (Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (stating that “[b]y registering the ‘typosquatted’ domain name in [Complainant’s] affiliate program, Respondent profits on the goodwill of [Complainant’s] protected marks and primary Internet domain names,” which is evidence of bad faith registration and use).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <generaliravelinsurance.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: April 22, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page