Transamerika.com

The timeline behind transamerika.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 Transamerica Corporation v. Gi Hwan Oh / NameInfra.com Claim Number: FA2210002017556 PARTIES Complainant is Transamerica Corporation ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Gail Podolsky of Carlton Fields, P.A., United States. Respondent is Gi Hwan Oh / NameInfra.com ("Respondent"), South Korea. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <transamerika.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 26, 2022; Forum received payment on October 26, 2022. On October 26, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <transamerika.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 27, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 16, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@transamerika.com. Also on October 27, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 21, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 Complainant is a holding company for a group of companies engaged in the sale of life insurance, investment planning, and retirement services. Complainant's largest subsidiary had more than $1 trillion of insurance in force at the end of 2016. Complainant has used the TRANSAMERICA mark since 1929, and states that its companies spend millions of dollars every year to advertise and promote the mark. Complainant owns numerous United States trademark registrations for TRANSAMERICA and related marks. Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain name <transamerika.com>. The domain name was registered in the name of a privacy registration service prior to the commencement of this proceeding, at which time the registrar removed the privacy shield. The domain name registration record lists a creation date of March 2009, although Complainant states that Respondent registered the name in February 2021. The domain name is being used to display a parked page composed of pay-per-click links. The screenshot provided by Complainant includes links labeled "Life Insurance Transamerica" and "Transamerica Life Insurance," both of which take users to advertisements for competitors of Complainant. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark. Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <transamerika.com> is confusingly similar to its TRANSAMERICA mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name <transamerika.com> incorporates Complainant's registered TRANSAMERICA trademark, substituting a letter "K" for the "C" and adding the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Transamerica Corp. v. Jack Li, FA 1954758 (Forum Aug. 24, 2021) (finding <transameriica.com> confusingly similar to TRANSAMERICA); Transamerica Corp. v. Domain Admin / Domain Privacy Ltd, FA 1949722 (Forum June 30, 2021) (finding <treansamerica.com> confusingly similar to TRANSAMERICA); Transamerica Corp. v. Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd, FA 1937128 (Forum Apr. 26, 2021) (finding <tramsamerica.com> confusingly similar to TRANSAMERICA); Transamerica Corp. v. Jin Dong Li / Li Jin Dong, FA 1923147 (Forum Dec. 31, 2020) (finding <transamericca.com> confusingly similar to TRANSAMERICA); Comerica Inc. v. Balticsea LLC / Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0131519121, D2013-0932 (WIPO July 16, 2013) (finding <comerika.com> confusingly similar to COMERICA). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and its sole apparent use has been to display a parked page composed of pay-per-click links to competitors of Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Transamerica Corp. v. Jack Li, supra (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests in similar circumstances); Transamerica Corp. v. Domain Admin / Domain Privacy Ltd, supra (same); Transamerica Corp. v. Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd, supra (same); Transamerica Corp. v. Jin Dong Li / Li Jin Dong, supra (same); Comerica Inc. v. Balticsea LLC / Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0131519121, supra (same). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location." Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name corresponding to a misspelling of Complainant's well-known registered mark, in an obvious instance of typosquatting, and is using the domain name to display pay-per-click links that promote competing services, presumably for commercial gain. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Transamerica Corp. v. Jack Li, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Transamerica Corp. v. Domain Admin / Domain Privacy Ltd, supra (same); Transamerica Corp. v. Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd, supra (same); Transamerica Corp. v. Jin Dong Li / Li Jin Dong, supra (same); Comerica Inc. v. Balticsea LLC / Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0131519121, supra (same). The Panel so finds. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <transamerika.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: November 21, 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.