Secufamilyhouse.org

The timeline behind secufamilyhouse.org

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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION State Employees' Credit Union v. Another Meaw Claim Number: FA2511002190842 PARTIES Complainant is State Employees' Credit Union ("Complainant"), represented by Sheldon H. Klein of Lathrop GPM, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Another Meaw ("Respondent"), Thailand. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <secufamilyhouse.org>, 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. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 24, 2025. Forum received payment on November 24, 2025. On November 24, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <secufamilyhouse.org> 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 November 26, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 16, 2025 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@secufamilyhouse.org. Also on November 26, 2025, 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 December 17, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 Founded in 1937, Complainant, State Employees' Credit Union, is a member-owned, not-for-profit financial cooperative based in North Carolina that is now the second largest credit union in the United States. Under its service mark SECU and other service marks containing that mark, Complainant offers a wide range of financial products to its members. Through its charitable foundation, SECU Foundation, Complainant supports initiatives in housing, education, healthcare and human services. One SECU Foundation initiative is its support of SECUFH, a nonprofit organization which uses the SECU service mark with Complainant's permission, under license. The vision for SECUFH was kindled in 2001 by a small group of volunteers who recognized the need for extending hospitality, hope and support to families of critical care patients at UNC (University of North Carolina) Hospitals in North Carolina. SECUFH provides a safe, nurturing, affordable temporary home for patients and their loved ones who travel great distances to UNC Hospitals for life-saving procedures and serious illnesses. SECUFH owned the domain name at issue, <secufamilyhouse.org>, from May 24, 2006, through June 30, 2025, until it was grabbed by Respondent when SECUFH unintentionally failed to timely renew the domain name registration. The <secufamilyhouse.org> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to one or more registered and unregistered service marks in which Complainant has rights. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <secufamilyhouse.org> domain name. Complainant's ownership and use of its SECU marks and SECUFH's ownership and use of the domain name at issue predate Respondent's registration and use of the domain name by many years. Upon information and belief, Respondent has never been known by the domain name; has not acquired any related service mark or service mark rights; and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name misleadingly to divert consumers and to tarnish Complainant's SECU marks. The domain name resolves to a Thai language gambling website from which Respondent and/or its affiliates realize illegitimate revenue. The <secufamilyhouse.org> domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent is deliberately exploiting the goodwill and reputation built by Complainant over decades by registering the domain name on August 24, 2025, shortly after SECUFH unintentionally failed to renew it. This opportunistic registration was not coincidental. Rather, it was a calculated attempt to divert Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's well-established service marks. Respondent's domain name mimics Complainant's SECU marks and domain names in a way that misleads vulnerable individuals. By diverting traffic intended for SECUFH to an unrelated Thai language online gambling site, Respondent not only creates consumer confusion but also exploits the trust and urgent needs of the intended users of the SECUFH website that was, until recently, accessed via the domain name at issue. Instead of finding the compassionate support they expect, website visitors are now exposed to potential financial harm, emotional distress, and likely significant privacy risks. This is especially egregious given the nature of the audience—patients undergoing cancer treatment, organ transplants or trauma care, and their loved ones seeking stability during medical crises. The misleading domain name undermines the integrity of SECUFH's mission and will, if not stopped, erode public trust, interfere with fundraising efforts, and jeopardize access to critical services for those in need. The harm is not hypothetical—it directly impacts real families during some of the most vulnerable moments of their lives. Respondent's conduct demonstrates a clear intent to capitalize on Complainant's reputation and to mislead the public, satisfying the criteria for bad faith under the UDRP. The timing, the nature of Respondent's website, and the harm caused to unsuspecting users all point to a deliberate and unethical attempt to profit from confusion and misrepresentation. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. 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 Complainant has shown that it has rights in several USPTO registered marks in International Class 36 which incorporate "SECU", including "SECU State Employees' Credit Union", Reg. No. 6,041,539, registered on April 28, 2020 for inter alia financial services, namely, credit union services; "SECU LIFE insurance company", Reg. No. 4,503,018, registered on March 25, 2014 for insurance services, namely, underwriting, issuance and administration of life insurance; and "SECU FAST MORTGAGE", Reg. No. 6,317,461, registered on April 6, 2021 for originating, underwriting and servicing mortgage loans. Complainant has provided a 2025 screenshot of its website at "www.ncsecu.org", showing frequent use of SECU, both by Complainant and its members, as a reference to Complainant and its services. The Panel's search of the Internet Archive Wayback Machine has shown such use on numerous occasions since February 29, 20001. This satisfies the Panel that Complainant has long held common law service mark rights in SECU in North Carolina. It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.7. Further, the fact that secondary meaning may only exist in a particular geographical area or market niche does not preclude a complainant from establishing trademark rights (and as a result, standing) under the UDRP. WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.3. The Panel finds Respondent's <secufamilyhouse.org> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's SECU mark, only differing by the addition of the descriptive words "family house", which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark and instead evokes the services provided by SECUFH. The inconsequential ".org" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000). Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The <secufamilyhouse.org> domain name was originally registered on May 24, 2006 by Complainant's charitable foundation, SECUFH, and was used for a website promoting the foundation's community services. After that registration inadvertently lapsed in June, 2025, it was registered by Respondent in August, 2025. It resolves to an online gambling website in the Thai language. These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <secufamilyhouse.org> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), including: (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent is likely to have been aware of Complainant, its SECU mark and the prior use of the recently expired domain name when Respondent registered the <secufamilyhouse.org> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website and of the services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <secufamilyhouse.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: December 22, 2025 [1] Noting the general powers of a panel articulated in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, it is commonly accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record, as the Panel has done in this proceeding. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), ¶ 4.8. 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.