Source: http://azrefs.org/case-no-d2006-1361-the-parties.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:47:01+00:00

Document:
The disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 18, 2006 electronically and on October 23, 2006 in hardcopy. The Complaint was first filed with regard to the domain names and . The domain name was registered in the name of INNOVATIVE WEB IDEAS of New Delhi, India.
On October 24, 2006, the Center transmitted by email to Network Solutions, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name and by email to Direct Information Pvt Ltd d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name . On October 24, 2007, Network Solutions, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant of the domain name and providing contact details for the administrative and technical contact. On October 25, 2007, Direct Information Pvt Ltd d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant of the domain name and providing the contact details for the administrative and technical contact.
On the Center’s request Network Solutions, LLC confirmed that the domain name remains in registrar lock status, and will remain as is, until the UDRP proceedings are concluded in accordance with ICANN’s Expired Domain Deletion Policy, paragraph 3.7.5.7.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 3, 2006. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 23, 2006.
On November 10, 2006, the listed Registrant of the domain name filed a Response with the Center stating that the domain name was registered for a client and that the registration was made in the name of INNOVATIVE WEB IDEAS due to a mistake. INNOVATIVE WEB IDEAS offered to transfer the domain name to the Complainant.
On December 28, 2006, Complainants’ representative requested to continue the proceedings because the domain name was not transferred to the Complainants before the agreed deadline.
On January 29, 2007, the Complainants’ representative requested to continue the proceedings in respect of the domain name and the withdrawal of the proceedings with respect to the domain name .
On February 6, 2007, the Center confirmed the re-institution of the proceedings with regard to the domain name . In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 19, 2007. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 23, 2007.
The Center appointed Torsten Bettinger as the sole panelist in this matter on March 16, 2007. 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.
The Complainants are owners of a huge number of trademark applications and registrations which include the word ZURICH, attributable to the Zurich Financial Services Group of Companies, inter alia Swiss trademark registration No. 429078 ZURICH registered on December 5, 1994, for services in class 36 and Community trademarks No. 82867 ZÜRICH and No. 82834 ZURICH registered for goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 36 on May 21, 1999, and June 1, 1999 respectively.
The test of confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone, independent of the products for which the domain name is used or other marketing and use factors, usually considered in trademark infringement (See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Limited v. Dejan Macesic, WIPO Case No. D2000-l698; Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2001-0110; Dixons Group Plc v. Mr. Abu Abdullaah, WIPO Case No. D2001-0843; AT&T Corp. v. Amjad Kausar, WIPO Case No. D2003-0327; BWT Brands, Inc. and British American Tobacco (Brands), Inc. v. NABR, WIPO Case No. D200l-l480; Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention, WIPO Case No. D200l-0505).
The Panel thus finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the ZURICH marks in which Complainants have rights and that Complainants have established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy requires the complainant to prove that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. However, there is a consensus view among Panelists that if the complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests, and the respondent fails to show one of the three circumstances under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, then the respondent may lack a legitimate interest in the domain name.
The domain name fully includes the Complainants’ famous trademark ZURICH. The Complainants showed that the Respondent has neither a license nor any other permission to use the trademark ZURICH in which the Complainants have rights and that therefore by using the domain name at issue Respondent is infringing Complainants’ trademark rights in the word “Zurich”. The Panel thus finds that the Complainants have made a prima facie showing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name .
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith and that also the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been met.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.