Westmore · UDRP DecisionAllianzsyariah.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <allianzsyariah.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the registered ALLIANZ mark because adding the dictionary term “syariah” and the “.com” gTLD did not prevent confusing similarity. The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because the domain had been used for a deceptive website falsely using the Complainant’s name and logo to offer financial services. That use also showed awareness of the Complainant and constituted an intentional attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain through confusion.
The timeline behind allianzsyariah.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind allianzsyariah.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates that adding a dictionary term to a well-established mark does not avoid confusing similarity where the mark remains fully recognizable. More importantly, a website that uses the complainant’s logo and presents itself as an official site in the complainant’s own commercial field can simultaneously defeat claimed legitimacy and provide compelling evidence of awareness, intentional confusion, and bad-faith commercial use. Later inactivity did not erase the significance of the prior deceptive use.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Allianz SE v. Direct Privacy - 24b81, Savvy Investments, LLC ID# 14659618 / Ade Adwitya Case No. D2021-0669 1. The Parties The Complainant is Allianz SE, Germany, represented internally. The Respondent is Direct Privacy - 24b81, Savvy Investments, LLC ID# 14659618 / Ade Adwitya, Indonesia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <allianzsyariah.com> (‘the Domain Name’) is registered with DNC Holdings, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 4, 2021. On March 4, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 8, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 10, 2021 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 amended Complaint on March 10, 2021. 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 March 15, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 4, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 7, 2021. The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on April 14, 2021. 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 a German multinational financial services company. Its core businesses are insurance and asset management. The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark ALLIANZ registered, inter alia , as International registration No. 447004 for insurance and financial services since 1979. The Domain Name registered in 2019 has been used for a site purporting to offer financial services using the Complainant’s name and logo. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows: The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark ALLIANZ registered, inter alia , as an International registration for insurance and financial services since 1979. The Domain Name registered in 2019 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark adding only the generic term “syariah” (the Malay spelling of Sharia) and the generic Top-Level Domain “gTLD” (“.com”) which do not prevent said confusing similarity. The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name was used for a website using the Complainant’s name and logo to offer financial services to deceive Internet users for fraudulent purposes. There is no bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. This is bad faith registration and use diverting and confusing Internet users for commercial gain. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trade mark (which is registered, inter alia , as an International registration for insurance and financial services since 1979), the dictionary Malayan word “syariah” meaning sharia, and the gTLD “.com”. Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a dictionary word and a gTLD to a complainant's trade mark. The Panel agrees that the addition of the dictionary Malayan word “syariah” and the gTLD “.com” to the Complainant’s trade mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s ALLIANZ trade mark pursuant to the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALLIANZ registered trade mark. As such the Panel holds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its ALLIANZ trade mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. The Domain Name does not currently resolve to an active site, but has been used for a commercial website purporting to be an official site of the Complainant falsely using the Complainant’s name and logo to offer financial services. The Panel finds this use was deceptive. As such it did not amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In the opinion of the Panel, the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site was confusing and disruptive in that visitors to that site might reasonably have believed it was connected to or approved by the Complainant as it used the Complainant’s logo to offer competing financial services. The use of the Complainant’s logo shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its rights, business and services. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and services on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. As such, the Panel believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith. 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 Domain Name <allianzsyariah.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Dawn Osborne Sole Panelist Date: April 22, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around allianzsyariah.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.