FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant was founded in Mannheim, Germany in 1865. As of 2024, The Complainant's business is organized into 11 divisions, which are grouped into six segments: Chemicals, Materials, Industrial Solutions, Surface Technologies, Nutrition & Care and Agricultural Solutions. The Complainant has subsidiaries and joint ventures in more than 80 countries and operates six integrated production sites and 390 other production sites in Europe, Asia, Australia, the Americas and Africa. The Complainant has customers in more than 190 countries.<\/p>\n
Lucura Versicherungs AG is the Complainant’s German captive insurer company, which operates exclusively as a captive insurer in Italy. Essentially, Lucura Versicherungs AG is a German insurance company controlled by the Complainant to cover its own business risks.<\/p>\n
Lucura Versicherungs AG has been operating for years as a direct insurer and reinsurer in Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, China, and other countries where the BASF Group operates.<\/p>\n
The first denomination of the LUCURA company was “Lucura Rückversicherungs AG”. Its first registration in the Companies Register dates from 1991 while in 2012 its denomination changed to the current one, which is “Lucura Versicherungs AG”.<\/p>\n
According to the Complainant’s submissions, the name \"LUCURA\" has been used for many years as the official name of Lucura Versicherungs AG, headquartered in Ludwigshafen am Rhein. The company is regularly cited in financial statements and official documents as a central entity in the Complainant Group's insurance strategy, where it plays a key role as the \"central internal risk\" within the Corporate Insurance Strategy.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on February 28, 2023, and currently it is inactive. According to the Complainant’s submission, it was previously used to redirect users to the website of the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin), specifically to the page dedicated to the company Lucura Versicherungs AG.<\/p>\n
On August 7, 2025, the Complainant sent the Respondent a cease-and-desist letter, which remains unanswered.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainant contends that:<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark “LUCURA”, and that the addition of the term “insurance” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark LUCURA. On the contrary, the addition of the term “insurance” exacerbates the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark, as it directly refers to the Complainant’s business.<\/p>\n
The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and is not related to the Complainant’s business in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business dealings with, the Respondent.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith<\/p>\n
The Complainant claims and documents that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a fraudulent scheme whereby the Respondent impersonates the Complainant. Specifically, the Respondent impersonates the Complainant by offering insurance policies for sale under the name of Lucura Versicherungs AG.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the Complainant asserts that such use of the disputed domain name cannot be considered a legitimate or fair use, as the Respondent is undoubtedly attempting to deceive unaware users by impersonating the Complainant with the intention to benefit from the trademark reputation of the Complainant and to illegitimately trade on the Complainant’s renowned trademark LUCURA for commercial gain.<\/p>\n
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent is a serial cybersquatter, having been found to have registered and used many other domain names in bad faith. In support of this thesis the Complainant has provided a list of 37 UDRP cases filed against the current Respondent.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the registration and intensive use of the trademark LUCURA since 1991, and the use of the Complainant's trademark LUCURA for the purpose of impersonating the Complainant, show that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant’s trademark LUCURA and that the Respondent intentionally targeted the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Complainant points out that according to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”), in certain limited circumstances where the facts of the case establish that the respondent’s intent in registering the domain name was to unfairly capitalize on the complainant’s nascent (typically as yet unregistered) trademark rights, panels have been prepared to find that the respondent has acted in bad faith.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>", "rights": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed 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).<\/p>", "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 disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Fabrizio Bedarida" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-10-07 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner of:<\/p>\n
European Union Trademark LUCURA (word) registration No. 018987238 filed on February 16, 2024 and registered on June 4, 2024;<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the parent company of Lucura Versicherungs AG, which is its German captive insurance company.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "LUCURA-INSURANCE.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }