Insuranceinformationsecurian.com, Advisorsecurian.com

The timeline behind insuranceinformationsecurian.com

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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

DECISION Securian Financial Group, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD Claim Number: FA2208002009986 PARTIES Complainant is Securian Financial Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD (“Respondent”), Panama. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <insuranceinformationsecurian.com> and <advisorsecurian.com>, (‘the Domain Names’) registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 26, 2022; Forum received payment on August 26, 2022. On August 30, 2022, Media Elite Holdings Limited confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <insuranceinformationsecurian.com> and <advisorsecurian.com> Domain Names are registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Media Elite Holdings Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Media Elite Holdings Limited 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 August 30, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 19, 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@insuranceinformationsecurian.com, postmaster@advisorsecurian.com. Also on August 30, 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 September 28, 2022 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant The Complainant is the owner of the Mark SECURIAN, registered, inter alia, for insurance services in the USA with first use recorded as 2001. The Domain Names registered in 2022 are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark, in the case of <securiandadvisor.com> adding the generic term advisor, and in the case of <insuranceinformationsecurian.com> adding the generic words insurance and information, and in both cases adding the gTLD “.com”. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, is not commonly known by them and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Names have been used for pay per click links including competing links designed to disrupt the business of the Complainant and confusing Internet users for commercial gain. The Respondent has been involved in a pattern of bad faith activity in registering Domain Names including the Complainant’s mark in another UDRP case. The Domain Names have been offered for sale generally. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the Mark SECURIAN, registered, inter alia, for financial and insurance services in the USA with first use recorded as 2001. The Domain Names registered in 2022 have been used for commercial pay per click links including competing links and have been offered for sale generally. The Respondent has been the subject of another adverse decision under the UDRP. 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 The Complainant's SECURIAN mark is registered, inter alia, in the USA with first use for insurance services recorded as 2001. <advisorsecurian.com> adds the generic term ‘advisor’ and the gTLD “.com” to the Complainant’s mark. <insuranceinformationsecurian.com> adds the words ‘insurance’ and ‘information’, and the gTLD “.com” to the Complainant’s mark. Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds generic term(s) to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v. Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic terms ‘advisor’ or ‘insurance’ and/or ‘information’ to the Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between each of the Domain Names and the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. The gTLD “.com” does not serve to distinguish a domain name from a Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SECURIAN registered mark. As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The Respondent has used the Domain Names for pay per click links including competing services not connected with the Complainant. It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant. See Ferring B.V. v. Shanshan Huang / Melissa Domain Name Services, FA1505001620342 (Forum July 1, 2015) (“Placing unrelated third party links for the benefit of a respondent indicates a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services, and a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), respectively.”). The Domain Names containing the Complainant’s distinctive mark have been offered for sale generally for a sum in excess of registration costs which without justification suggests a lack of rights or legitimate interests. See 3M Company v. Kabir S Rawat, FA 1725052 (Forum May 9, 2017) (holding that “a general offer for sale… provides additional evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests” in a disputed domain name). The fact that the Respondent has been involved in another UDRP case where is registered a domain name including the Complainant’s mark and was the subject of another adverse decision under the Policy suggests a lack of rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or provided any explanation. As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Names and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The existence of another UDRP case involving the Respondent and the Complainant’s mark shows the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant, its marks, business and services. Use for pay per click links indicates bad faith being disruptive of the Complainant’s business and diverting customers for commercial gain and also indicates actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business. See Plain Green, LLC v. wenqiang tang, FA1505001621656 (Forum July 1, 2015) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to feature third-party hyperlinks constituted bad faith). The Respondent has offered the Domain Names containing the Complainant’s distinctive mark for sale generally. See Capital One Financial Corp. v. haimin xu, FA 1819364 (Forum Jan. 8, 2019) (“A general offer to sell a domain name can be evidence the respondent intended to make such an offer at the time it registered the name, supporting a finding of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”). The Panel also notes the adverse decision against the Respondent in another case involving the Complainant’s mark indicating a pattern of activity. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. oranges arecool XD / orangesarecool.com, FA1405001558045 (Forum July 10, 2014) (finding that the respondent’s registration of multiple domain names in the instant proceeding and prior adverse UDRP history was evidence of bad faith registration and use of the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Para 4(b)(i),(ii),(iii) and (iv). 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 <insuranceinformationsecurian.com> and <advisorsecurian.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: September 29, 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.