Usaainsurance.com

The timeline behind usaainsurance.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION United Services Automobile Association v. Michele Dinoia a/k/a SZK.com Claim Number: FA0506000497783 PARTIES Complainant is United Services Automobile Association (“Complainant”), represented by Carol L. B. Matthews, of Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, 1940 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. Respondent is Michele Dinoia a/k/a SZK.com (“Respondent”) Via Trilussa 11 Pineto TE Italy. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <usaainsurance.com>, registered with Onlinenic, Inc. 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. Louis E. Condon as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 16, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 17, 2005. On June 17, 2005, Onlinenic, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain name <usaainsurance.com> is registered with Onlinenic, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Onlinenic, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Onlinenic, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On June 17, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 7, 2005 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@usaainsurance.com by e-mail. Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On July 13, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <usaainsurance.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s USAA mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <usaainsurance.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <usaainsurance.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, United Services Automobile Association, is a provider of consumer oriented insurance and financial services including automobile insurance services, property insurance services, life insurance services, health insurance services, annuities, banking services, investment services, and financial planning services. Complainant has enjoyed increasing success throughout the years and currently owns and manages over $83 billion worth of assets. Complainant has registered the USAA mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 806,520 issued March 29, 1966, renewed 1986) for use with various consumer financial services as well as in promotional and marketing materials. Respondent registered the <usaainsurance.com> domain name on March 4, 2003. Respondent’s domain name originally resolved to a website featuring links to competing financial services websites; however, Respondent’s domain name no longer resolves to any active website. 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." 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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, Inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent's failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) ("In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint."). 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has established rights in the USAA mark through registration with the USPTO. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”). Respondent’s <usaainsurance.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered mark. Respondent incorporates Complainant’s entire USAA mark with the addition of “insurance,” a generic term describing the business in which Complainant engages, and the generic top level domain “.com.” Such minor changes fail to significantly distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s USAA mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business); see also Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. Café au lait, FA 93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <marriott-hotel.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s MARRIOTT mark); see also Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to the complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and Respondent, in not submitting a response, has failed to refute this assertion. As a result, the Panel construes Respondent’s failure to respond as evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <usaainsurance.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). Respondent is using the confusingly similar <usaainsurance.com> domain name to operate a website that features links to competing financial services websites, from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such competing use is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services). Furthermore, Respondent has failed to present any evidence that that would suggest that Respondent is either commonly known by the disputed domain name or authorized to register domain names incorporating Complainant’s USAA mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the <usaainsurance.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark); see also Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA 173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that without demonstrable evidence to support the assertion that a respondent is commonly known by a domain name, the assertion must be rejected). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent is using the <usaainsurance.com> domain name to attract Internet users to a website that features a series of hyperlinks to competing financial services websites, through which Respondent presumably earns click-through fees. Because Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s USAA mark, consumer’s accessing Respondent’s domain name may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting website. Such commercial use constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto., FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) through the respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent website by using the complainant’s famous marks and likeness); see also Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”). Furthermore, because Complainant registered the USAA mark with the USPTO prior to Respondent’s registration of the <usaainsurance.com> domain name, Respondent is said to have actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark. Moreover, the Panel infers actual knowledge due to the obvious connection between the content on Respondent’s website and Complainant’s business. Registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to another’s mark despite actual or constructive knowledge of the mark holder’s rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (holding that “there is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively”); see also Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the link between the complainant’s mark and the content advertised on the respondent’s website was obvious, the respondent “must have known about the Complainant’s mark when it registered the subject domain name”); see also Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002) (“Complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the Principal Register of the USPTO, a status that confers constructive notice on those seeking to register or use the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof.”). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <usaainsurance.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Louis E. Condon, Panelist Dated: July 22, 2005 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.