WIPO D2017-0287 · decided 12 April 2017
Allianz SE v. IP Legal, Allianz Bank Limited
The parties
- Complainant
- Allianz SE
- Respondent
- IP Legal, Allianz Bank Limited
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found allianzkenya.com confusingly similar to ALLIANZ, and held the geographic term "Kenya" increased the similarity because an Allianz subsidiary trades in Kenya as "Allianz Kenya". |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel found no rights or legitimate interests, because the registrant name "Allianz Bank Limited" matched no South African company and the page showed only "Website Under Construction". |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found bad faith under the Telstra passive holding factors: a well-known mark, no evidence of good faith use, a concealed identity and inaccurate contact details. |
Why does Allianz matter for a complaint today?
Allianz SE won the transfer of allianzkenya.com, registered on 2 August 2016. The domain showed only "Website Under Construction. Webmail. Cpanel". The registrant gave its organisation as "Allianz Bank Limited". Allianz showed that no company of that name appeared in the database of the South African Companies and Intellectual Property Commission. The panel applied the passive holding test from Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003. The ALLIANZ trademark is well known. The respondent gave no evidence of good faith use. It hid its identity behind a company that does not exist and gave inaccurate contact details, which breaches the registration agreement. Together these facts were bad faith registration and use. Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 lists the same factors. The panel also held that adding "Kenya" made the confusion worse, because an Allianz subsidiary trades there as "Allianz Kenya". For a business owner, a domain that joins your trademark to a country where you trade can be recovered before it hosts a website. Check the registrant's company name against the official company register and put the result in the complaint. The limit: section 3.3 says the weaker the mark, the more plausible a good faith use becomes.
What does the WIPO Overview 3.1 say?
The WIPO Overview 3.1 summarises how WIPO panels decide each issue. These sections cover the same point of law.
- Section 1.8: Is a domain name consisting of a trademark and a descriptive or geographical term confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark? The Overview cites this decision here.
- Section 3.3: Can the "passive holding" of a domain name support a finding of bad faith?
Who decided the case?
A single panelist, Kiyoshi Tsuru, decided the case on 12 April 2017.
Read the decision
The full text is published by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. We summarise it here; the decision itself is the authority.
Summarised by Gergana Dimitrova, who worked at the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center from 2018 to 2021 and sits as a domain name panelist at the Czech Arbitration Court. Checked against the published decision on 23 October 2026. Full background.
Someone has taken a domain that uses your brand?
The first assessment is free and comes back within 24 hours. If the case is weak we say so rather than take the fee.