Segurostransamerica.com

The timeline behind segurostransamerica.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. Maria Florencia farfan / transmexico Claim Number: FA2407002105159 PARTIES Complainant is Transamerica Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Gail Podolsky of Podolsky Law LLC, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Maria Florencia farfan / transmexico ("Respondent"), Mexico. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <segurostransamerica.com>, registered with Wix.com Ltd.. 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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 6, 2024; Forum received payment on July 6, 2024. On July 10, 2024, Wix.com Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <segurostransamerica.com> domain name is registered with Wix.com Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wix.com Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wix.com Ltd. 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 July 12, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 1, 2024 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@segurostransamerica.com. Also on July 12, 2024, 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 August 2, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows: Complainant is a holding company for a group of subsidiaries engaged in the sale of life insurance, investment planning, and retirement services. Complainant has rights in the TRANSAMERICA mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). Respondent's <segurostransamerica.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it incorporates the TRANSAMERICA mark merely prefixed with the term "seguros," which is Spanish for "insurance," and with all followed by the ".com" generic top-level domain. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <segurostransamerica.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the TRANSAMERICA mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the domain name addresses a website that displays Complainant's trademarks and color scheme, and purports to offer Transamerica insurance related services. Complainant's customers and other internet users may reasonably, but mistakenly, believe that Respondent's website is owned, sponsored or affiliated with Complainant. Such use of the at-issue domain name to divert Internet users to a fraudulent website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name <segurostransamerica.com>, therefore, UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) does not apply. Respondent registered and uses the <segurostransamerica.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent's website brings internet users to a fake Transamerica website. The website uses Complainant's trademarks, color scheme, and purports to offer Transamerica insurance related services. Complainant's customers and other internet users may reasonably, but mistakenly, believe that Respondent's website is owned, sponsored or affiliated with Complainant. This demonstrates that Respondent registered and is using <segurostransamerica.com> in bad faith for the purpose of intentionally attempting to divert, for commercial gain, internet users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's TRANSAMERICA mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of the services offered through Respondent's website. Respondent's registration of <segurostransamerica.com> with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the TRANSAMERICA mark, further amounts to bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the TRANSAMERICA trademark. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity. Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the TRANSAMERICA trademark. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that falsely appears to be a Spanish language version of Complainant's genuine website. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant shows that it has multiple USPTO registrations for its TRANSAMERICA trademark. Any one of such registrations is sufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant's USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Respondent's at-issue domain name consists of Complainant's TRANSAMERICA mark prefixed with the Spanish word for insurance, "seguros," with all followed by the ".com" top-level. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's TRANSAMERICA mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's TRANSAMERICA trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."). Rights or Legitimate Interests 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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively. 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 <segurostransamerica.com>. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS information for <segurostransamerica.com> identifies the domain name's registrant as "Maria Florencia farfan" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <segurostransamerica.com>. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark). Respondent uses the confusingly similar domain name to address a website pretending to be an official website of Complainant. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See e.g., Mulberry Co. (Design) Ltd. v. Chen, D2010-1718 (WIPO Nov. 26, 2010) ("[The] disputed domain names are being used by the Respondent for websites which falsely appear to be affiliated, connected or associated with the Complainant. In this Panel's view, such use and purpose of the disputed domain names without the authorization of the trademark owner shows that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names or a bona fide offering of goods and services"). Given the forgoing, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <segurostransamerica.com>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered and uses the <segurostransamerica.com> domain name to address a website that is dressed to look as if it is affiliated with Complainant so that Respondent might pass itself off as Complainant and benefit by capitalizing on the goodwill resident in Complainant's TRANSAMERICA trademark. The website purports to offer TRANSAMERICA insurance related services. Using the domain name in this manner is disruptive to Complainant's business and demonstrates Respondent's bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also, Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."). Moreover, Respondent registered the at-issue domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in TRANSAMERICA. Respondent's prior knowledge is revealed by the notoriety of Complainant's TRANSAMERICA mark and by Respondent's use of the <segurostransamerica.com> domain name to address a website pretending to look like a genuine website of Complainant. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name"). 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 <segurostransamerica.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: August 4, 2024 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.