Serviceminnesotalife.com

The timeline behind serviceminnesotalife.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 Securian Financial Group, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD Claim Number: FA2208002010547 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 NAME The domain name at issue is <serviceminnesotalife.com>, registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited. 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 31, 2022; Forum received payment on August 31, 2022. On September 5, 2022, Media Elite Holdings Limited confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <serviceminnesotalife.com> domain name is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 September 7, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 27, 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@serviceminnesotalife.com. Also on September 7, 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 October 7, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant i) Complainant offers services related to insurance, investment, and retirement products. Complainant has rights in the MINNESOTA LIFE mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,462,139, registered on June 19, 2001). Complainant and its affiliates provide financial security to over 13 million people nationwide through insurance, investment, and retirement products. Complainant and its predecessors in interest have extensively used and advertised the MINNESOTA LIFE mark in association with a wide range of products and services dating back to at least as early as 1880.The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s MINNESOTA LIFE mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety while adding the generic term “service” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). ii) Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by offering the domain name for sale. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its MINNESOTA LIFE mark in the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead offers commercial links to competing products through pay-per-click advertisements. iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent engages in a pattern of bad faith registration and use. Respondent offers the domain name for sale while offering competing links in disruption of Complainant’s business. Additionally, Respondent attempts to attract users for commercial gain. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MINNESOTA LIFE mark. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on August 8, 2022. 2. Complainant has rights in the MINNESOTA LIFE mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,462,139, registered on June 19, 2001). 3. The disputed domain name’s resolving website offers commercial links to competing products through hyper-link advertisements. 4. The disputed domain name is offered for sale. 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 claims rights in the MINNESOTA LIFE mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,462,139, registered on June 19, 2001). Registration with the USPTO is generally sufficient to establish rights in a mark. See Nintendo of America Inc. v. lin amy, FA 1818485 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant’s ownership a USPTO trademark registration for the NINTENDO mark evidences Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Since Complainant provides copies of its registration in the MINNSOTA LIFE mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <serviceminnesotalife.com> is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s MINNESOTA LIFE mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a generic term and the “.com” gTLD is generally insufficient in differentiating from the mark. See MTD Products Inc v. J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”). The disputed domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety while adding the generic term “service” along with the “.com” gTLD. Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its MINNESOTA LIFE mark in the disputed domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may demonstrate that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1502001605239 (Forum Mar. 22, 2015) (“WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name lists ‘Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.’ as the domain name’s registrant and there is nothing in the record that otherwise suggests Respondent is commonly known by the <google-status.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”). The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Fundacion Privacy Services LTD.” Thus, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any noncommercial or fair use. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), offering competing pay-per-click links while diverting users to its website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any noncommercial or fair use. See Yahoo! Inc. v. Web Master, FA 127717 (Forum Nov. 27, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a pay-per-click search engine, in competition with the complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services)); see also Invesco Ltd. v. Premanshu Rana, FA 1733167 (Forum July 10, 2017) (“Use of a domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving website, which displays pay-per-click advertisements. Additionally, Complainant provides screenshots of the clicked-through links. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). Additionally, Complainant contends Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by offering it for sale. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), offering a disputed domain name for sale demonstrates a lack of rights nor legitimate interests in the domain name. 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). Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name being offered for sale. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith by offering it for sale. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i), offering a domain name for sale is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Airbnb, Inc. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, FA 1821386 (Forum Jan. 10, 2019) (“Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <airbnbb.com> domain name in bad faith by offering it for sale. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”). Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name being offered for sale for $899.00. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). Additionally, Complainant contends Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith by offering competing products or services in disruption of Complainant’s business. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), using a disputed domain name to offer competing services is a disruption of a complainant’s business and thus evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Spark Networks PLC v. Houlihan, FA 653476 (Forum Apr. 18, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s registration of a domain name substantially similar to the complainant’s AMERICAN SINGLES mark in order to operate a competing online dating website supported a finding that respondent registered and used the domain name to disrupt the complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). The Panel recalls the screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving website, which offers pay-per-click advertisements in competition with Complainant. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Complainant further contends Respondent registered the disputed domain name with bad faith actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MINNESOTA LIFE mark. The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant’s mark and the manner of use of the disputed domain name that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MINNESOTA LIFE mark at the time of its registering the disputed domain name, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain in bad faith under Policy ¶ 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 <serviceminnesotalife.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: October 11, 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.