En-usaa.com

The timeline behind en-usaa.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 United Services Automobile Association v. Gavino Beretta Claim Number: FA2602002206009 PARTIES Complainant is United Services Automobile Association ("Complainant"), represented by Manuel Rivera of United Services Automobile Association, Texas, USA. Respondent is Gavino Beretta ("Respondent"), Italy. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <en-usaa.com>, registered with Register SpA. 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. Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 18, 2026; Forum received payment on February 18, 2026. On February 19, 2026, Register SpA confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <en-usaa.com> domain name is registered with Register SpA and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register SpA has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register SpA 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 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 16, 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@en-usaa.com. Also on February 23, 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 17, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 asserts trademark rights in USAA which it uses in connection with a range of financial services all offered to members having or having had a direct or familial connection to the United States Armed Forces. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark. Complainant states that the disputed domain name was created many years after Complainant's first use of its trademark. Complainant submits that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Further, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. In particular, Complainant states that Respondent uses the domain name for an online phishing or malware/spyware installation scheme in which attempts can or are being made to illegally obtain personal information from unsuspecting users and use such information for monetary gain. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that: 1. Complainant provides financial services by reference to the mark USAA; 2. Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 806,520, issued March 29, 1966, for the mark, USAA; 3. the disputed domain name was registered on November 11, 2025; and 4. the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering insurance and other services under the homepage heading: USAA: Protecting Military Families with Confidence. 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. Paragraph 4(a)(i) does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights (see, for example, Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017). A trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). Complainant provides a USPTO Register extract of its ownership of the registered mark, USAA. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has trademark rights since the mark is registered with a national authority. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark. For the purposes of comparison of the disputed domain name with the trademark, the gTLD, ".com" can be disregarded (see, for example, Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007)). Even when the gTLD is disregarded, the domain name is clearly not identical to the trademark and so the only question is whether they are confusingly similar. Complainant states that: "UDRP Panels have consistently held that the addition of a generic or descriptive term relating to the complainant's business is not sufficient to distinguish the domain name from the complainant's mark, and many UDRP Panels have held that such domain names actually increases the likelihood of confusion and association between the domain name holder and the trademark owner." The Panel agrees in principle with that statement but is unclear how it relates to the domain name at issue. Complainant states that "the domain name consists of the USAA mark – a famous mark strongly associated with Complainant and tacks on the additional letters "en"; which creates an association with USAA and its services." There is no explanation of how the letters "en" might be generic or descriptive and the Panel is left to make it own assessment which relies on the case of Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) and others like it where it was held that "[w]here 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.")). The Panel treats the letters "en" as meaningless, or at most a reference to the word "English", and regards the trademark as the dominant and recognizable part of the domain name. The Panel therefore finds the domain name confusingly similar to the trademark and so finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states 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 rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use 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) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)). There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights of its own. The name of the domain name owner does not carry any suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the domain name. There is no indication that Respondent has been given authority to use the trademark or register a domain name including the trademark. Complainant states that: "Respondent's registration and use of the Domain Name for the purposes of defrauding users by conducting malicious phishing attacks and channeling them to fraudulent individuals, emails, and/or websites in order to obtain personal and financial information does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name under the UDRP." Nothing directly supports those broad accusations but certainly the resolving website uses the trademark in connection with insurance services and creates the impression that the site is owned or authorised by Complainant. No mention is made in the Complaint of the disclaimer at the end of the site which states that "[t]his website is not affiliated with USAA but helps connect users with licensed USAA Insurance agents." Whether that claim is true or not, Complainant exercises no control over the site and there is no sustainable argument of fair use. The Panel finds it likely that Respondent benefits financially in some way by either redirection fees or indeed more maliciously, as Complainant asserts, from harvesting sensitive personal or financial information from enquirers. That is enough to establish a prima facie case. The disclaimer is tucked away and unlikely to be read when the net impression of the website creates an impression on the mind of an internet user that it has reached a website owned and controlled by Complainant (see, for example, Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. Michael Katka, FA 2079444 (Forum Feb. 8, 2024) ("Use of a domain name to redirect users to unrelated third-party sites (whether or not they compete with Complainant) is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use"); Radio Flyer Inc. v. yang zhi chao, FA 2043233 (Forum June 5, 2023) ("Using the confusingly similar domain name to capitalize on pay-per-click links is 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).")). The onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests. Absent a Response, the onus is not met and so the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith. Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. The four specified circumstances are: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name 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 the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website 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 the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location. The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct falls under paragraph 4(b)(iv). The Panel has found that the domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark. The use of the domain name is more likely than not for commercial gain. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to an online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that location. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy. 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 <en-usaa.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Debrett G Lyons, Panelist Dated: March 18, 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.