Combined Insurance Company of America v Andre Arancibia

WIPO Case No. D2023-4697

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Combined Insurance Company of America v. Andre Arancibia

Case No. D2023-4697

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Combined Insurance Company of America, United States of America (“United States”),

represented by Fish & Richardson P.C., United States.

The Respondent is Andre Arancibia, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <combinedinsurancesolutions.net> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 11,

2023. On November 13, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar the Complainant on November 17, 2023, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on November 17, 2023.

verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 13, 2023, the Registrar transmitted
by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed
domain name which differed from the named Respondent (PRIVACY SERVICE PROVIDED BY WITHHELD

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal

requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 21, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 11, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 13, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on December 18, 2023. The Panel
finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and
Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the

Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is in the insurance business and owns several trademarks relating to such business, including the word mark COMBINED INSURANCE for which it enjoys the benefits of registration (e.g., United States Reg. No. 5783614, registered on June 18, 2019). According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on September 4, 2023. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to set up a website purporting to offer health and life insurance services that are similar to the services the Complainant offers.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the

Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the

disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

This first element under the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview of WIPO

Panel Views on Selected Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. This element

requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and

second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.

A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark
certificate belong to its respective owner. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde
Nast S.A. v. Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the

COMBINED INSURANCE mark by providing evidence of its trademark registration.

The disputed domain name incorporates the COMBINED INSURANCE mark in its entirety, together with the

word “solutions” which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name

and the Complainant’s mark. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The COMBINED INSURANCE mark is

recognizable for a showing of confusing similarity under the Policy.

The Panel finds the Complainant has established this first element under the Policy.

page 3

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent (with the burden of proof always remaining with the Complainant). See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1; and AXA SA v. Huade Wang, WIPO Case No. D2022-1289.

On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: (1) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, (2) the Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use the

COMBINED INSURANCE and/or COMBINED-formative marks, and (3) the Respondent’s use of the

disputed domain name to operate a website offering similar goods - essentially imitating the Complainant - is
not a bona fide offering of goods and services.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required prima facie showing. The Respondent has not presented evidence to overcome this prima facie showing. And nothing in the record otherwise tilts the

balance in the Respondent’s favor. The Panel finds the Complainant has established this second element

under the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a website that offers services similar to those associated with the COMBINED INSURANCE and other trademarks owned by the Complainant. The Panel finds that this constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy because it shows that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial

gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the

Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <combinedinsurancesolutions.net> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Evan D. Brown/

Evan D. Brown

Sole Panelist
Date: December 28, 2023