Standard Life Assurance Limited, Standard Life Assets and Employee; Services Limited v Allikvee Roman

WIPO Case No. D2024-0630

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Standard Life Assurance Limited, Standard Life Assets and Employee
Services Limited v. Allikvee Roman

Case No. D2024-0630

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Standard Life Assurance Limited, Standard Life Assets and Employee Services represented by Pinsent Masons LLP, UK.

The Respondent is Allikvee Roman, Switzerland.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <yourstandardlife.com> is registered with DropCatch.com LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 12, 2024. On February 12, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 12, 2024, 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 (Name Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on February 13, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint on the same date.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 February 15, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 6, 2024. The Respondent sent email communications to the Center on February 16 and March 7, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Kiyoshi Tsuru as the sole panelist in this matter on March 18, 2024. 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 Complainants are subsidiaries of Phoenix Group Holdings Plc, a United Kingdom based long-term savings and retirement business established in 1825. Phoenix Group Holdings Plc is listed amongst the largest UK’s public companies with a total value of approximately GBP 259 billion. The Complainants’ parent company has received many awards in recognition of its products and services.

The Complainant Standard Life Assets and Employee Services Limited is the owner of several trademark registrations in the UK and in the European Union, including:

Trademark	Registration No.	Jurisdiction	Date of	Goods or Services
Registration
Class 35. Legal, accounting, auditing and personnel services, all relating to
STANDARD	United	pensions; payroll processing
UK00001272922	July 6, 1990
LIFE	Kingdom	services; computerized data- base management services; statistical information services for business purposes. Class 36. Banking, trust management, unit trust, trusteeship, fund investment management, insurance, financial investment, pension,
STANDARD	United	financial management, personal
UK00001272923	July 20, 1990
LIFE	Kingdom	loan financing, mortgaging, real estate agency, real estate management and real estate leasing services: provision of finance or of credit, all for real estate development. Class 35: Accounting, auditing and personnel services, payroll processing services; computerized database management services; provision of information relating to all the aforesaid services, provision of business statistical information;
STANDARD	United	advisory and consultancy
UK00900496729	March 10, 1999
LIFE	Kingdom	services all relating to the aforesaid services.
Class 36: Banking, financial, trust management, unit trust, trusteeship, fund investment management, insurance,
financial investment, pension, financial management personal

page 3

loan financing, mortgage, real
estate agency, real estate
management and real estate
leasing services, provision of
finance or of credit, actuarial
services: financial appraisal
services; advisory, information
and consultancy services all

relating to the aforesaid services.

Class 42: Computer
programming services; computer
consultancy services; design of
computer hardware; rental of
computer hardware and
computer software; leasing of
access time to a computer
database; all the aforesaid
services being related to financial
and insurance services; legal
services; advisory, information
and consultancy services all
relating to the aforesaid services.
Class 35: Accounting, auditing
and personnel services; payroll
processing services;
computerized database
management services; provision
of information relating to all the
aforesaid services; provision of
business statistical information;
advisory and consultancy
services all relating to the
aforesaid services.

Class 36: Banking, financial, trust management, unit trust, trusteeship, fund investment

STANDARD European management, insurance,

000496729 March 10, 1999

LIFE	Union	financial investment, pension, financial management, personal loan financing, mortgage, real estate agency, real estate management and real estate leasing services; provision of finance or of credit; actuarial services; financial appraisal services; advisory, information and consultancy services all relating to the aforesaid services.
Class 42: Computer programming services; computer consultancy services; design of computer hardware; rental of

page 4

computer hardware and
computer software; leasing of
access time to a computer
database; all the aforesaid
services being related to financial
and insurance services; legal
services; advisory, information
and consultancy services all
relating to the aforesaid services.
Class 16: Printed publications;
publicity and promotional
material; books, picture books,
magazines, periodicals and
supplements; brochures and
catalogues; fact sheets,
pamphlets and leaflets; paper
and paper articles; cardboard
and cardboard articles;
stationery, including pens,
pencils, crayons, pencil cases,
eraser, rulers, posters, markers,
pencil sharpeners, pictures and
prints, stickers, paperweights,
diaries and calendars; all the
aforesaid goods relating to or for
the promotion of financial or

asset management services.

Class 35: Business services;
business consultancy services;

business management services;

STANDARD European business information services;

007606511 October 7, 2009

LIFE Union accounting and auditing services;
tax and taxation planning;
personnel services; personnel
and human resources
consultancy and information
services; payroll processing
services; computerized
database management services;
electronic data storage; data
processing; provision and
compilation of business
information; business services
relating to the provision of
sponsorship; promotional
services; advisory, consultancy
and information services all
relating to all the aforesaid
services; all the aforesaid
services including those provided
online from a computer database
or the Internet.

page 5

Class 36: Financial services; asset management services; financial management and

administration; financial
sponsorship; financial analysis
and evaluation; financial portfolio
management services; provision
of financial information; banking;
investments; insurance; trust
management; unit trust and
mutual fund services, financial
trusteeship, fund investment
management; pension services;
loan services, personal loan
financing, arranging of loans;
mortgage and mortgage broking
services; real estate agency,
real estate management and real
estate leasing services; leasing
of commercial properties;
property and real estate financing
and investment; property
management and valuation;
credit services; actuarial
services, financial appraisal
services, assurance services,
underwriting services, insurance
underwriting, insurance
brokerage, risk assessment and
risk consultancy and
management services; advisory,
consultancy and information
services relating to all the
aforesaid services; all the
aforesaid services including
those provided online from a
computer database or the
Internet.

The Complainants own the domain name <standardlife.co.uk>, which resolves to the Complainant’s official website. The Panel also notes that the domain name <standardlife.com> redirects to the Complainant’s domain name <standardlife.co.uk>.

The disputed domain name <yourstandardlife.com> was registered on May 19, 2023, and it resolves to a parked website with pay-per-click (“PPC”) links that redirect traffic to competing websites related to financial matters and investments.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainants contend that they have satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

page 6

Notably, the Complainants contend the following:

I. Identical or Confusingly Similar.

That the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and trading name
STANDARD LIFE, since said disputed domain name wholly incorporates them.

That the incorporation of additional terms such as “your” at the beginning of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy.

II. Rights or Legitimate Interests

That the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with PPC links, which shows that it has not been used in connection to a bona fide offering of goods or services.

That the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in full knowledge of the Complainants’ trademark.

That there is no evidence showing that the Respondent has any rights in a name or sign which is similar or identical to the Complainants’ marks.

That the Complainants have not authorized the Respondent to use their marks.

III. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

That the Respondent was aware of the Complainants’ widespread international presence through their marks
when the Respondent deliberately included them in the disputed domain name, with the purpose of creating
a likelihood of confusion – or at least an impression of association – with the Complainants, or their marks.

That the Respondent uses a privacy shield service to obfuscate the Respondent’s registration details and contact information. That, with no additional context and a lack of evidence of legitimate use, this is likely because the Respondent is intentionally abusing the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

Even though the Respondent sent email communications to the Center on February 16 and March 7, 2024, communicating that the Respondent could relinquish the disputed domain name to the Complainants in exchange for USD 950 “in the interest of an amicable resolution and to avoid further dispute or legal action”, these communications do not constitute a formal response.

6. Discussion and Findings

Given the Respondent’s failure to specifically address the case merits as they relate to the three UDRP elements, the Panel may decide this proceeding based on the Complainants’ undisputed factual allegations under paragraphs 5(f), 14(a), and 15(a) of the Rules (see Joseph Phelps Vineyards LLC v. NOLDC, Inc., Alternative Identity, Inc., and Kentech, WIPO Case No. D2006-0292, and Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. null John Zuccarini, Country Walk, WIPO Case No. D2002-0487; see also WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3).

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainants’ trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

page 7

The Complainants have shown rights in respect of the STANDARD LIFE mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel finds that the entirety of Complainants’ mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainants have established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent, by failing to specifically address the Complainant’s contentions, has not rebutted the Complainants’ prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name is being used to resolve to a website with PPC links to
competing websites. Therefore, no rights or legitimate interests can be found in favor of the Respondent.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.9. Moreover, the Respondent has indicated that he was “willing to offer the

Complainant the opportunity to purchase the domain name for $950 USD.”

Therefore, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

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.

The Complainants have ascertained their rights over the STANDARD LIFE trademark. The dates of registration of the Complainants’ trademarks significantly precede the date of registration of the disputed domain name.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name
which entirely reproduces the Complainants’ trademark STANDARD LIFE, shows that the Respondent, more
likely than not, has targeted the Complainants, which constitutes opportunistic bad faith (see
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1).

page 8

Given the notoriety of the trademark STANDARD LIFE, and the widespread use of it that the Complainants have made internationally, this Panel finds that the Respondent, more likely than not, knew the Complainants and their mark STANDARD LIFE at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, which constitutes bad faith registration under the Policy.

Previous panels appointed under the Policy have found that the mere registration by an unauthorized party of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a widely-known trademark, can create a presumption of bad faith (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4). This is so in the present case.

The Panel also notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a parked website comprising PPC links to competing websites. Therefore, this Panel considers that the Respondent is trying to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainants by misleading Internet users, for commercial gain, to the website to which the disputed domain name resolves (and the websites to which the PPC links redirect) by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of said websites, which constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4; see also Ustream.TV, Inc. v. Vertical Axis, Inc, WIPO Case No. D2008-0598. “The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a PPC parking page constitutes bad faith use because the Respondent is attracting Internet users to its website by causing confusion as to whether its website is, or is associated with, the Complainant or its services. This conduct disrupts the Complainant’s business by diverting consumers away from the Complainant’s website. The diversion is for the Respondent’s commercial gain because the Respondent receives PPC revenue from those visitors to its website who click through to the advertising on the site. Thus, the Respondent’s conduct constitutes classic bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy […].”).

Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainants have 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 <yourstandardlife.com> be transferred to the Complainants.

/Kiyoshi Tsuru/
Kiyoshi Tsuru
Sole Panelist
Date: April 1, 2024