Securianfinancial.co

The timeline behind securianfinancial.co

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. DNS Admin Claim Number: FA2301002027072 PARTIES Complainant is Securian Financial Group, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., United States. Respondent is DNS Admin ("Respondent"), Netherlands. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <securianfinancial.co>, registered with NameSilo, 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 January 11, 2023; Forum received payment on January 11, 2023. On January 11, 2023, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <securianfinancial.co> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 January 12, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 1, 2023 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@securianfinancial.co. Also on January 12, 2023, 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 February 6, 2023, 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 large financial services company that provides insurance, investment, and retirement products and services to more than 15 million people, and has $64 billion of assets under management. Complainant has used the SECURIAN and SECURIAN FINANCIAL SERVICES marks in connection with its products and services since at least as early as 2001, and owns United States trademark registrations for both of those marks in standard character form. Complainant also asserts common law trademark rights in SECURIAN. Respondent registered the disputed domain name <securianfinancial.co> in July 2022. It resolves to a web page stating that the domain name is available for sale at a price of $750. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not authorized or licensed to use Complainant's mark. Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <securianfinancial.co> is confusingly similar to its SECURIAN and SECURIAN FINANCIAL SERVICES marks; 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 <securianfinancial.co> incorporates Complainant's registered SECURIAN trademark (adding the generic term "financial") and most of Complainant's SECURIAN FINANCIAL SERVICES mark, adding the ".co" top-level domain. The alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's marks. See, e.g., Securian Financial Group, Inc. v. Johnny Leed / Johnnyleed, FA 1889588 (Forum Apr. 17, 2020) (finding <securianretirementcenter.co> confusingly similar to SECURIAN); Securian Financial Group, Inc v. Warren Zaccaro, FA 1727086 (Forum May 31, 2017) (finding <securianfinancial.net> confusingly similar to SECURIAN). 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 it is being used for the sole apparent purpose of advertising the domain name itself for sale. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., United Services Automobile Association v. Cyan Yo, FA 1931638 (Forum Mar. 15, 2021) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); TechSmith Corp. v. Vildan Erdogan, FA 1803825 (Forum Sept. 25, 2018) (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)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." 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 registered a domain name incorporating Complainant’s distinctive coined mark, and is using it for the sole apparent purpose of advertising the domain name itself for sale. Respondent has not come forward to offer any alternative explanation for its selection or intended use of the domain name, and none is apparent to the Panel. Under the circumstances, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent selected and is using the disputed domain name to create and profit from confusion with Complainant and its marks, either by selling it to Complainant or a competitor thereof or by using it to impersonate Complainant or to attract Internet users seeking Complainant. See, e.g., Bunge Ltd. v. Evgenii Fefelov, FA 1956666 (Forum Aug. 20, 2021) (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); loanDepot.com, LLC v. David Robnett / Expert Lenders, Inc., FA 1800959 (Forum Sept. 17, 2018) (same). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 <securianfinancial.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: February 8, 2023 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.