Westmore · UDRP DecisionVhv-insurance.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <vhv-insurance.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the VHV trademark because it incorporated VHV in full with the related dictionary term “insurance.” The Respondent had no demonstrated rights or legitimate interests, and the inactive domain carried a risk of implied affiliation. Bad faith was found because VHV had been used before the 2021 registration, “insurance” directly referenced the Complainant’s business, and the circumstances indicated that the Respondent knew of and intended to capitalize on the trademark. Passive holding did not prevent a bad-faith finding.
The timeline behind vhv-insurance.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 vhv-insurance.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates how a domain that exactly incorporates a trademark and adds a term describing the trademark owner’s industry can support findings across all three UDRP elements. The related term preserved confusing similarity, increased the risk of implied affiliation, and supported the Panel’s conclusion that the registrant knew of and targeted the Complainant. It also demonstrates that an inactive domain may still satisfy the bad-faith requirement when the domain’s composition, prior trademark use, lack of a plausible good-faith purpose, and absence of rebuttal point in the same direction.
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 VHV Allgemeine Versicherung AG v. Jarrod Brennet Case No. D2021-2290 1. The Parties The Complainant is VHV Allgemeine Versicherung AG, Germany, represented by JBB Rechtsanwaelte Jaschinski Biere Brexl Partnerschaft mbB, Germany. The Respondent is Jarrod Brennet, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <vhv-insurance.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 12, 2021. On July 15, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 22, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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 August 19, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 8, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 23, 2021. The Center appointed Oleksiy Stolyarenko as the sole panelist in this matter on October 1, 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 an established insurance company operating in Germany since 1919. The Complainant started operating under the name “VHV” in various forms since 2003. Even earlier, September 14, 2000, the associated companies of the VHV Group first started to use “VHV” in their company names. The Complainant and other companies from its group have registered a number of VHV trademarks for services in Class 36, mostly related to insurance. Some of the VHV trademark registrations are indicated below: - German Trademark Registration for VHV III VERSICHERUNGEN and design, No. DE30737113, registered on September 24, 2007, in Class 36; - German Trademark Registration for VHV CYBERPROTECT, No. DE302016226750, registered on January 16, 2017, in Class 36; The Complainant’s affiliated companies also registered several VHV trademark registrations: - German Trademark Registration for VHV, No. DE302010026451, registered on July 12, 2010, in Class 36 – trademark owner – VHV Holding AG; - German Trademark Registration for VHV III and design, No. DE1190359, registered on June 1, 1994, in Class 36 – trademark owner – VHV Vereinigte Hannoversche Versicherung A.G. The Complainant is the owner of the domain name <vhv.de>. The Respondent appears to be an individual from the United States. According to the WhoIs, the disputed domain name was registered on April 25, 2021. The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website or page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has strong rights in VHV trademark by virtue of its longstanding use for insurance services in Germany. The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VHV and VHV III VERSICHERUNGEN marks, because “vhv” is a distinctive element of the mark and the element “versicherung” in the Complainant’s trademarks is translated as “insurance” from German. Therefore, the Respondent used the English translation of the Complainant’s trademark for the disputed domain name. The term “vhv” is not descriptive in any way, nor does it have any generic, dictionary meaning. The Complainant has not given its consent for the Respondent to use its registered trademarks in domain name registrations. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as the Respondent (i) owns no rights in the VHV mark, (ii) is not commonly known by the name “vhv”, (iii) has made no legitimate use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s VHV trademark rights goes back to 2007 and the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in 2021 likely for the purpose of causing a confusion amongst the Internet users. The disputed domain name replicates the Complainant’s mark in its entirety. The Complainant is an established insurance company from 1919 and started operating under the name “VHV” in various forms since 2003. Therefore, the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant’s reputation and the Complainant’s trademark rights on the VHV trademark when he registered the disputed domain name. In the absence of any meaningful justification from the Respondent, the Complainant considers that the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes use in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has proved its rights in the VHV trademark through numerous German registrations. Therefore, the Panel considers that the Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of having relevant trademark rights. Furthermore, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VHV trademark. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark VHV in its entirety. The fact that the disputed domain name differs from the Complainant’s trademark by the addition of the dictionary word “insurance” does not prevent finding a of confusing similarity. The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent with the hyphen between the words “vhv” and “insurance”, however, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s trademark is still recognizable in the disputed domain name. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is generally disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”). Therefore, the Panel disregards the gTLD for the purposes of this comparison. The Panel finds that according to a side-by-side comparison the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s VHV trademark and, thus, that the Complainant’s VHV trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has therefore been satisfied by the Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the complainant to establish that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Once the complainant establishes a prima facie case against the respondent under this ground, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to rebut it. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 . In this case, the Respondent did not rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case regarding the lack of rights or legitimate interests. However, the overall burden of proof remains with the Complainant. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides circumstances that may demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name, and that complainants frequently address to show that the activities of the respondent do not fall under the bona fide offering of goods or services (paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy), that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name (paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy), and that the respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name (paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy). The Panel finds that the nature of the disputed domain name, wholly incorporating the Complainant’s VHV trademark and a related dictionary term, means that any use of such domain name by the Respondent carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 . According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use the VHV trademark in the disputed domain name, as well as not in any way affiliated with the Complainant. The Panel also notes that the Respondent failed to come forward with any relevant evidence confirming use or demonstrable preparations to use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Taking into account that the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, as well as the reputation and long period of use of the Complainant’s VHV trademark and in the corresponding Complainant’s domain name and website, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not involved in a bona fide offering of goods or services (under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy) and the Respondent’s activities does not fall under a legitimate noncommercial use (under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy). According to the Registrar’s WhoIs information, “Jarrod Brennet” is the registrant of the disputed domain name. The Panel did not find any evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel concludes that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. The Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second element of the Policy, namely paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith As the Panel established above, the Complainant’s VHV trademark was used in commerce well before the registration of the disputed domain name on April 25, 2021. The Complainant, uses VHV mark in various forms since at least 2003. The Panel finds with a high degree of certainty that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s VHV trademark when registering the disputed domain name. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the disputed domain name contains a dictionary word “insurance” which is a clear reference to the main type of activity of the Complainant. Furthermore, the Respondent use of the dictionary word “insurance” in the disputed domain name has a potential to strengthen the impression of the Internet users that the disputed domain name is operated by the Complainant or the Complainant’s authorized agent or representative of the Complainant. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to submit a response to disprove allegations of illegal activity or provide any evidence of a good-faith use or to show rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel concludes that the Respondent’s intent for registering the disputed domain name, which reproduces the Complainant’s trademark along with the dictionary word “insurance” has always been to capitalize on the goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, the Panel finds it implausible that the disputed domain name could be used by the Respondent in good faith considering that it incorporates the Complainant’s trademark and a related dictionary term. The Panel finds that the fact that the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website does not prevent a finding of bad faith in these circumstances. Therefore, under the totality of the circumstances, the Panel finds the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and that the Complainant consequently has satisfied the third element of the Policy, namely, paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 <vhv-insurance.com> be transferred to the Complainant Oleksiy Stolyarenko Sole Panelist Date: October 15, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around vhv-insurance.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.