Wwwmytransamerica.com

The timeline behind wwwmytransamerica.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Transamerica Corporation v. Domain Administrator / Sugarcane Internet Nigeria Limited Claim Number: FA2602002204495 PARTIES Complainant is Transamerica Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Gail Podolsky of Podolsky Law LLC, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Sugarcane Internet Nigeria Limited ("Respondent"), Nigeria. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <wwwmytransamerica.com>, registered with Sav.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. Petter Rindforth as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 9, 2026; Forum received payment on February 9, 2026. On February 10, 2026, Sav.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <wwwmytransamerica.com> domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sav.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sav.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 February 12, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 4, 2026 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@wwwmytransamerica.com. Also on February 12, 2026, 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 March 5, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Petter Rindforth 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 The Complainant is a holding company for a group of subsidiaries engaged in the sale of life insurance, investment planning, and retirement services. Complainant's largest subsidiary has been underwriting insurance since 1906 and has had more than $1.055 billions of insurance in force as of December 31, 2016. Complainant has used the name "Transamerica" since 1929 as a trade name and service mark. The Transamerica Companies have advertised and promoted "Transamerica" as a name and service mark for many years in national consumer publications, as well as multiple websites, including, but not limited to, www.transamerica.com, www.transamericaseriestrust.com, www.transamericaworksite.com and www.mytransamerica.com. Respondent's domain <wwwmytransamerica.com> redirects users to a webpage titled "Access and Manage Your Transamerica Account." The pages also has a link instructing the user to "Activate Account," however, the link does not take the user to a legitimate Transamerica account activation page. Rather, it takes users to a sponsored advertisement for another product or service. The page also provides sponsored links to Complainant's competitors. The <wwwmytransamerica.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's TRANSAMERICA trademark as it incorporates "transamerica" in the name in its entirety. Complainant never authorized Respondent to register or use the TRANSAMERICA mark in any manner. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwmytransamerica.com> domain name under ¶ 4(c) of the UDRP Policy. Respondent's intentional misspelling is to take advantage of Internet users' typographical errors and create a situation of deception and confusion among consumers attempting to locate Complainants' domains. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Respondent's use of a privacy service is additional evidence of bad faith under the Policy. Respondent's registration of <wwwmytransamerica.com> in spite of actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the TRANSAMERICA mark, amounts to bad faith registration and use pursuant to UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the TRANSAMERICA trademark, registered at the USPTO, for example: No. 1,129,244 TRANSAMERICA (word), registered on January 15, 1980 for goods in Intl Class 16; No. 1,202,289 TRANSAMERICA (word), registered on July 20, 1982 for services in Intl Class 36; and No. 1,635,682 TRANSAMERICA (word), registered on February 19, 1991 for services in Intl Classes 35, 36, 37, 39 and 41. The disputed domain name <wwwmytransamerica.com> was registered on March 10, 2022. 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 Complainant claims rights in the TRANSAMERICA trademark based upon its registration with the USPTO. Registration with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark pursuant to 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)). Here, Complainant provides copies of its TRANSAMERICA registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,129,244, registered on January 15, 1980). Therefore, the Panel find that Complainant has rights in the TRANSAMERICA trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Next, Complainant asserts that the <wwwmytransamerica.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the TRANSAMERICA trademark as it contains the trademark in its entirety, merely adding "www", the word "my", and the ".com" gTLD. Additions of random letters and non-distinctive words along with a gTLD may not sufficiently mitigate any confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.' These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."). The Panel notes that in the present case, the Respondent has used the Complainant's distinctive trademark, and added the non-distinctive and/or descriptive letters "www," and the word "my" along with a ".com" gTLD. The Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that the <wwwmytransamerica.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's TRANSAMERICA trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name). Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwmytransamerica.com> domain name. Specifically, Complainant argues that Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use the TRANSAMERICA trademark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark.). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's trademark may demonstrate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). The WHOIS information of record in the present case identifies Respondent as "Domain Administrator / Sugarcane Internet Nigeria Limited", and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the TRANSAMERICA trademark or is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore find that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). As discussed in Complainant's Sections 6(e), Respondent brings the Internet user to a website containing links to Complainant's competitors which offer services in direct competition with those offered by Complainant. Complainant further argues that Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwmytransamerica.com> domain name is evinced by its failure to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent is attempting to create the impression of association with Complainant to trade off the good-will associated with Complainant. Attempting to create a false affiliation to divert Internet users seeking complainant's website is not a bona fide offering or legitimate use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug.21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Here, Complainant asserts that Respondent is intending to attract individuals looking for information about Complainant, where instead Respondent hosts a webpage containing links to Complainant's competitors which offer services in direct competition with those offered by Complainant. Therefore, the Panel agree with Complainant and find that Respondent has does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and uses the <wwwmytransamerica.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent is attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the content thereon. Bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) can be found where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to falsely indicate an association with a complainant. See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent took advantage of the confusing similarity between the <theotheraol.com> and <theotheraol.net> domain names and the complainant's AOL mark, which indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Here, Complainant claims that Respondent created a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and its trademarks by registering the domain name that incorporate - in its entirety - Complainant's TRANSAMERICA trademark, and giving the impression that interested individuals will receive information regarding Complainant and services, by "access and manage your Transamerica account". The Panel agree with Complainant and find that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Further, the Panel concludes, that the domain name itself, as well as the use of the domain name, strongly indicates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the TRANSAMERICA trademark when it registered the <wwwmytransamerica.com> domain name, thereby supporting a finding of 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 <wwwmytransamerica.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Petter Rindforth, Panelist Dated: March 16, 2026 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.