Generalitytravel.com

The timeline behind generalitytravel.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

DECISION Generali Global Assistance, Inc. v. Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd Claim Number: FA2210002015240 PARTIES Complainant is Generali Global Assistance, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Yuo-Fong C. Amato of Gordon & Rees, LLP, New York. Respondent is Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd (“Respondent”), US. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <generalitytravel.com>, registered with Above.Com Pty Ltd.. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 7, 2022; Forum received payment on October 7, 2022. On October 18, 2022, Above.Com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <generalitytravel.com> domain name is registered with Above.Com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Above.Com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Above.Com Pty Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On October 19, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 8, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@generalitytravel.com. Also on October 19, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On November 15, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant submits that it was founded in 1831 and is now a division of Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A., a Fortune Global 500 Company providing insurance, banking and investment services across the globe serving more than 65.9 million customers. Complainant claims rights in the GENERALI and GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE service marks established by use of the GENERALI mark by itself and its predecessors in title for almost 200 years and its ownership of the GENERALI and GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE marks among its portfolio of service mark registrations described below. Furthermore Complainant submits that together with its related entities it has operated a website at <www.generali.com>, offering insurance and financial services since at least as early as April 17, 2018 and owns and uses a large portfolio of Internet domain names including <generalitravelinsurance.com> and <generalitravel.com>. Complainant firstly alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its GENERALI and GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE registered service marks, as it incorporates Complainant’s famous GENERALI mark in its entirety, and adds the additional terms “ty” and “travel”, producing respectively a misspelling of the name and mark GENERALI, and a term commonly used in the insurance industry. Even more tellingly, Respondent’s domain encroaches upon Complainant’s rights in the GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark, wherein the only difference between the Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name is that the disputed domain name embodies the misspelling of the word “Generali” and strategically lacks the term “INSURANCE”. Again, these are not only misspellings and descriptive terms of the goods and services offered by the Complainant, but are descriptive terms commonly used in the insurance industry. Complainant argues that the above circumstances support a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the service marks in which it has rights. See State Farm Mutual Insurance Company v. Life en Theos, FA 94663 (June 1, 2000) (domain names <statementfarm-insurance.com> and <statefarmcustomerservice.com>) (finding, respondent’s domain name, which incorporates complainant’s STATE FARM mark, which adds an additional term that is commonly used in the insurance industry (here, “claims help”), is nearly identical to and confusingly similar with complainant’s service mark that it has been using since 1930, and to complainant’s other registered marks containing the phrase STATE FARM). Complainant next alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that there is no indication that Respondent has ever been known as “generali travel” or associated with Complainant and the Whois information for the disputed domain name shows the registrant of the domain as “Redacted for Privacy” based out of Delaware. See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA139720 (Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply). Respondent’s website is not associated with any bona fide offering of goods or services and has the potential to cause harm to users. Respondent’s use of <generalitytravel.com> is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent’s website displays clickable options titled, “Cheap Flights Airline Tickets”, “Airline Tickets”, and “Philo Television” and appears to be related to malicious software. See Google LLC v, Artem Polyakov, FA1910001868487 (Forum, Nov. 22, 2019) (finding that “[U]se of a disputed domain name to resolve to webpage that is not affiliated with a complainant and offers malware is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”). Notably, to further illustrate that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of good or services, a subsequent query of Respondent’s website yielded a new set of clickable options at the landing page titled, “Cheap Flights Airline Tickets”, “Hello Bonafide Revaree”, and “Cheap Airline Tickets From”. Complainant argues that it has been in the insurance services industry since 1831 and Respondent is promoting a similar online service, therefore the registrant of the disputed domain name must have been aware that all rights in GENERALI and GERNALI TRAVEL INSURANCE vested in Complainant. This knowledge itself is evidence of Respondent’s lack of legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Dr. Paul Guerrino v. Yin Chew, FA 110873 (June 17, 2002) (“The Respondent understood the legitimate interests and rights of Complainant and, by contrast its own lack of interest or right. This was sufficient for Complainant to establish that Respondent had no rights or interest in the domain name.”). Complainant adds that Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor does Respondent’s website constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services. To the contrary, Respondent’s use is clearly commercial in that it describes and links to insurance services competitive to Complainant’s. By using the disputed domain name for a competitor’s website, Respondent is willfully and maliciously causing consumer confusion and harm to Complainant’s business. Such a use cannot be deemed a bona fide offering of services under the Policy. See Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use where the domain name was used to divert Internet users to a website that offered services in direct competition with those offered by the complainant under its marks); Complainant finally alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing that at the time the disputed domain name was registered, in 2022, at which time Complainant’s GENERALI mark had already been widely used in commerce for approximately 200 years, and used online since at least as early as 1995. Furthermore by adding the letters “ty” to Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name, the registrant engaged in an act of typosquatting. Complainant adds that the screen captures of Respondent’s website which are annexed to the Complaint, and verified by declarations submitted by Complainant, show that Respondent is using the disputed domain name, which embodies Complainant’s famous GENERALI mark and substantial portions of Complainant’s GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark, as the address of a website with links to third party websites. Complainant contends that Respondent is thereby severely disrupting Complainant’s business and threatens to divert significant future business opportunities from Complainant. In linking the disputed domain name to a competitor’s website, rather than to Complainant, Respondent is deliberately preventing potential customers from finding Complainant on the Internet. Complainant argues that such willful, harmful action has been consistently found to constitute bad faith use of a domain name under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy. See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (July 18, 2000) (finding the respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s business). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is a provider of insurance services and is the registered owner of an international portfolio of registrations for the GENERALI mark and other marks including the element GENERALI, including the following trademark registrations. · United States registered service mark GENERALI registration number 1, 721,611, registered on the Principal Register on November 10, 1992 for services in international class 36; · United States registered service mark GENERALI (and design), registration number 4,766,583, registered on the Principal Register on July 7, 2015 for services in international class 36; · United States registered service mark GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE, registration number 5,675,885, registered on the Principal Register on July 7, 2015 for services in international class 36; · United States registered service mark GENERALI (and design), registration number4.,774,821, registered on the Principal Register on July 21, 2015 for services in international class 36; · United States registered service mark ARTE GENERALI registration number 6,422,186, registered on the Principal Register on February 12, 2019, for services in international class 36; · United States registered service mark GENERALI GLOBAL ASSISTANCE (and design) registration number 6,337,564 registered on the Principal Register on May 4, 2021 for services in international class 36. Complainant has an established Internet presence and together with its related entities has been operating a website at <www.generali.com>, offering insurance and financial related services online since at least as early as November 3, 1995. The disputed domain name <generalitytravel.com> was registered on March 22, 2022 and resolves to a website that contains pay-per-click links to third party websites. There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, as amended, the Registrar’s WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by the Forum in the course of this proceeding. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has provided convincing evidence that it has rights in the GENERALI and GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE registered service marks, established by the ownership of the portfolio of service mark registrations described above and its use of the marks to distinguish its insurance products and services. The disputed domain name <generalitytravel.com> consists of the GENERALI mark in its entirety; and two elements of the GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark are clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name also. The GENERALI mark is the initial, dominant, and only distinguishing element in the disputed domain name, which also contains the elements “ty” and “travel”. The letters “ty” in combination with Complainant’s GENERALI mark arguably create the word “generality”, but this is not sufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy. The element “travel” is generic and descriptive both in the disputed domain name and in Complainant’s GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark. In the circumstances of this proceeding, the gTLD <.com>. extension would be considered a necessary technical requirement for a domain name registration, This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the GENERALI and GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE marks in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that · there is no indication that Respondent has ever been known as “GENERALI TRAVEL” or associated with Complainant; · the Whois information for the disputed domain name shows the registrant of the domain as “Redacted for Privacy”; · Respondent’s website is not associated with any bona fide offering of goods or services and has the potential to cause harm to users; · the screen captures of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves show that Respondent’s website displayed clickable links entitled, “Cheap Flights Airline Tickets”, “Airline Tickets”, and “Philo Television” and a subsequent query of Respondent’s website yielded a new set of clickable links at the landing page titled, “Cheap Flights Airline Tickets”, “Hello Bonafide Revaree”, and “Cheap Airline Tickets From”; · Complainant has been in the insurance services industry since 1831 and Respondent is promoting a similar online service, so Respondent must have been aware that all rights in GENERALI and GERNALI TRAVEL INSURANCE vest in Complainant; · Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name but to the contrary, Respondent’s use is clearly commercial in that it describes and links to insurance services competitive to those offered by Complainant; · Respondent is willfully and maliciously causing consumer confusion and harm to Complainant’s business and such a use cannot be deemed a bona fide offering of services under the Policy. It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant has adduced clear and convincing, uncontested evidence that it has trademark and service mark rights in the GENERALI and GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE marks which long predate the registration of the disputed domain name on March 22, 2022. Complainant has a long, strong, and extensive reputation and goodwill in the GENERALI name and mark. It has adduced evidence that it has used the mark in combination with the word “travel” in a service mark since as early as 2015 when it registered the GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark. It is therefore improbable that the registrant of the disputed domain name did not associate the term <generalitytravel> with Complainant’s GENERALI mark. On the balance of probabilities, the registrant was aware of Complainant, its reputation, name and marks when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered; and the registrant registered the disputed domain name in an act of typosquatting by adding the letters “ty” to GENERALI, to create the word “generality”. The terms “generality” and “travel” have no obvious connection other than as a misspelling of the GENERALI mark within the disputed domain name and a reference to Complainant. This Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with Complainant in mind. The uncontested evidence adduced by Complainant shows that the disputed domain name has been used to resolve to a website with pay-per-click links. Such use of the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s name and marks is likely to divert Internet traffic to Respondent’s website. While it is alleged that the disputed domain name has been used to distribute malware, this is not proven, and such a serious allegation should really only be made with strong supporting evidence. This Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is, on the balance of probabilities, an intentional attempt to confuse and misdirect unsuspecting Internet users to Respondent’s website from which Respondent is on the balance of probabilities receiving pay-per-click income. This Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his/her/their web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship ,affiliation, or endorsement of his/her/their web site and is therefore using the disputed domain name in bad faith. As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <generalitytravel.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. ____________________________________ James Bridgeman SC Panelist Dated: November 16, 2022 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.