{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100211",
    "time_of_filling": "2010-12-09 11:53:01",
    "domain_names": [
        "halleschekrankenversicherung.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Tereza Bartošková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "HALLESCHE Krankenversicherung aG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "FPS Rechtsanwälte & Notare",
    "respondent": [
        "Bizbuddy"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant's business is located in Germany and was founded there in 1934.  It provides insurance services and owns various trademark rights as listed above.  The Complainant owns domain names such as hallesche-krankenversicherung.com and halleschekrankenversicherung.de. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is located in New Zealand and registered the domain name on 16 September 2010.  ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complaint reads as follows (exact wording as supplied by the Complainant set out below):\r\n\r\nComplainant's business is located in Germany and was founded there in 1934. Complainant owns domain names such as hallesche-krankenversicherung.com, halleschekrankenversicherung.de and others, which are in use for Complainant. In 2009, the complainant has provided insurance service to more than 500,000 clients. Complainant owns the following well-known IR, CTM and National trademark registrations with earlier priority which are identical or at least highly similar to the domain name registration at hand:\r\n\r\nIR Trademark 802905 (Priority: 14-03-2003); please see Annex I\r\nCTM 003114659 (Priority: 24-03-2003); please see Annex II\r\nGerman National trademark 30254398 (Priority: 5-11-2002); please see Annex III\r\n\r\nAll trademarks are registered in class 35 for the services \"adversising and business management, arranging and concluding commercial transactions by commercial agents and brokers for others\" and in class 36 for \"insurance and financial affairs, monetary affairs and real estate affairs\" (see Annex I-III). \r\n\r\nRespondent is located in New Zealand and has registered the domain name in a foreign language (here: in German language). The domain name is identical or at least highly similar to the registered trademarks of Complainant. Respondent is currently holding more than 400 domain name registrations and is obviously in the business of domain name trading  (please see Annex  IV).\r\n\r\nComplainant has not given its consent or a licence to Respondent on basis of which Respondent could legally have the rights to register the trademark in question as a domain name.\r\n\r\nIt is highly unlikely that Respondent has registered the domain name \"by mere coincidence\" since the domain name  is spelled in a language that is foreign to him and since the foreign domain name is identical or at least highly similar to Complainant's registered and well-known trademarks as well as to Complainant's business name \r\n\r\nThere is no inconceivable legitimate use of the domain name for Respondent. The domain name is identical or at least highly similar to Complainant well-known trademarks and is spelled in German language. There is simply no possible legitimate use for the domain name other than a use for the Complainant (see WIPO Case No. D2000-0028, Cellular One Group v. Paul Brien – cellularonechina.com; WIPO Case No. D2000-1074, Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. sony.net – sony.net). It would be impossible for Respondent to use the domain name as the name of any business, product or service for which it would be commercially useful without violating Complainant’s rights.\r\n\r\nFurther, Respondent is acting in bad faith as laid out in para. 4b (iv) UDRP because he is currently providing links in German language to the commercial websites of direct competitors of Complainant in the German insurance market such as Allianz Versicherung (www.allianz.de) and BIG direkt Versicherung (www.big-direkt.de). For proof, please see Annex V-VII. It has been decided in many cases that providing links to competitors or third parties is a proof of bad faith (see WIPO Case No. D2000-0038, The Channel Tunnel Group Ltd. v John Powell – euro-tunnel.com; WIPO Case No. D2001-0843, Dixons Group Plc v. Mr. Abu Abdullaah – dixons-online.net; WIPO Case No. D2001-1319, Edmunds.com v. Ultimate Search, Inc. – edmund.com; WIPO Case No. D2000-1768, Netwizards, Inc. v. Spectrum Enterprises – netwizard.net; WIPO Case No. D2000-0037, Zwack Unicum Ltd v. Duna – zwackunicum.com; NAF Case No. FA0011000095940, Oly Holigan, L. P. v. Private – michealholligan.com; NAF Case No. FA0009000095648, Marriott International, Inc. v. Kyznetsov – marriottrewards.com). The links provided by Respondent link directly to competitors of Complainant or to third parties. In the links provided, the text of the links clearly offers services which are being compared to the Complainant's services, such as \"Pay less insurance fees now\" (please see Annex V-VII). Furthermore, in Marriott International, Inc. v. Kyznetsov, it has been decided that a Respondent cannot contend that he is using the domain name in connection with a fair noncommercial venture it links to a commercial website. It is  then presumed that a registrant receives some sort of compensation as a result of such conduct.\r\n\r\nComplainant must have had knowledge of Complainant and its trademarks because the current content of www.halleschekrankenversicherung.com includes an embedded Youtube-Video which shows a TV commercial from Complainant and makes text references to Complainant (please see Annex VIII).\r\n\r\nIn addition to the above grounds, Respondent is clearly acting in bad faith due to the fact that he is currently holding more than 400 domains and clearly is in the business of selling domain names (please see above Annex  IV)\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy).",
    "procedural_factors": "The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Jane Seager"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2011-01-14 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns the following trademark registrations in the term HALLESCHEKRANKENVERSICHERUNG:\r\n\r\nIR trademark 802905, CTM 003114659 and German National trademark 30254398.\r\n\r\nThe trademarks are all figurative trademarks featuring a logo with the relevant letters underneath.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "HALLESCHEKRANKENVERSICHERUNG.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}