Us-usaa.com

The timeline behind us-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. Max Garofalo Claim Number: FA2606002227862 PARTIES Complainant is United Services Automobile Association ("Complainant"), represented by Manuel A. Rivera of United Services Automobile Association, Texas, USA. Respondent is Max Garofalo ("Respondent"), Italy. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <us-usaa.com>, registered with Register SpA. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Steven M. Levy as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 17, 2026; Forum received payment on June 17, 2026. On June 23, 2026, Register SpA confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <us-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 June 29, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 20, 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@us-usaa.com. Also on June 29, 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 July 21, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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 was founded in 1922 in San Antonio, Texas by 25 officers in the U.S. Army who banded together to insure each other's Model-T Ford automobiles. Since that time, USAA has grown into a Fortune 500 financial services company that has approximately 13 million members, all of whom have or have had a direct or familial connection to the United States Armed Forces, and over half of whom have served in the military. USAA continues to be headquartered in Texas and employs approximately 37,000 employees. Since at least as early as 1927, USAA has used the famous mark and trade name USAA in connection its goods and services. USAA currently offers a variety of services and products under the mark USAA, and through its <usaa.com> website, including banking, credit card, brokerage, and financial planning and insurance services (including annuities, automobile, homeowner, whole life and term life, renters, and personal property insurance). The USAA and USAA.COM trademarks are the subject of a number of registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") including Reg. No. 806520 dated March 29, 1966; Reg. No. 1712134 dated September 1, 1992; and Reg. No. 2355486 dated June 6, 2000. The <us-usaa.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the USAA marks in that it incorporates the entirety of the marks adding only the geographically letters "US", a hyphen, and the ".com" TLD. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and its hosting of a page that impersonates Complainant and seeks to obtain personal information from unsuspecting users is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's marks and based on the above-mentioned activity. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS - Complainant owns registered trademark rights to its USAA and USAA.COM marks and the <us-usaa.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the marks; - Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name, and it hosts a website that passes itself off as originating with Complainant; and - The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where its website passes itself off as Complainant and deceives potential customers, for commercial gain, based on a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks. 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 3.1 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 asserts rights in its USAA and USAA.COM marks through its registrations with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Here, Complainant provides screenshots from the USPTO website showing the details of its registrations. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the USAA and USAA.COM marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Next, Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the USAA and USAA.COM marks. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a hyphen or geographic terms, along with adding a TLD, is typically insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from the asserted mark. See SOLVAY Société Anonyme v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Gary Reid, D2022-2586 (WIPO Sep. 5, 2022) (confusing similarity found where "the Complainant's registered trademark SOLVAY is fully included in the disputed domain name, followed by a hyphen and the geographic term 'lebanon'"). See also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs."). The disputed domain name precedes Complainant's marks with the geographic term "US" and adds a hyphen and the ".com" TLD. These minimal changes do not reduce confusion and the marks are clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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"). Complainant first contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <us-usaa.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the USAA or USAA.COM marks. It has become well accepted that the information set out in a disputed domain name's WHOIS record may inform consideration of whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain name where the WHOIS information lists Respondent as "Operi Manaha," and nothing else in the record suggested Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX mark). In addition, a lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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 the <us-usaa.com> domain name, as revealed by the concerned Registrar, identifies the Registrant as "Max Garofalo". Complainant further asserts that it "has not authorized Respondent to use its USAA Marks in any fashion, including as part of the Domain Name." The Respondent has not participated in this case and so it does not dispute Complainant's assertions or supplement the available evidence. Therefore, the Panel finds no ground upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Next, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and that it is also not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Rather, it asserts that the <us-usaa.com> domain name resolves to a website that fraudulently impersonates Complainant and deceives the public. Such activity has been held to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Subway IP LLC v. subways pvt ltd / business development, FA 2069330 (Forum Nov. 28, 2023) (no rights or legitimate interests found where "Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and Complainant's Indian subsidiary..."). In support of its contentions Complainant provides screenshots of the <us-usaa.com> website – apparently from a phone screen. The Panel notes that Respondent's site features the message: "Trusted Insurance and Financial Solutions for Military Families with USAA" followed by text making liberal use of the USAA mark and describing the "insurance, banking, and retirement solutions" provided by Complainant. The pages also display a toll-free phone number and invite users to call it to "Get Expert Help" with "Flexible, Military-Friendly Coverage" and "Award-Winning Support". There does not appear to be any message on these pages stating that Respondent's site or services do not originate from Complainant and they offer no other indication that the site has no relationship with Complainant. Based upon the submitted evidence, the Panel agrees with Complainant's contention that Respondent creates a false impression that its site is impersonating Complaint and that it is deceiving potential customers. Respondent has not participated in these proceedings to offer any explanation for its activities. Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is not being used for a bona fide offering of goods or services or in a legitimate noncommercial or fair manner under either Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its USAA and USAA.COM marks. Actual knowledge can provide a solid foundation upon which to build an argument of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and this can be demonstrated based on the reputation of the mark as well as the use to which a disputed domain name is put. See WordPress Foundation v. mich delorme / mich d dots tlds, FA 1584295 (Forum Nov. 25, 2014) ("Because Respondent here relies on the WORDPRESS mark in the disputed domain name and also makes use of Complainant's services at the resolving page, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, and that such knowledge evidences Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith."). Also UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 3.4 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org ("For bad faith to be present, the Respondent must have actual knowledge of the existence of the Complainant, the trademark owner."). Complainant asserts that its marks "have become famous in the United States" and that it "has spent many millions of dollars advertising, marketing, and promoting its USAA branded products and services through a variety of national media, including billboards, Internet advertising, direct mail, print advertisements, and USAA's website at the domain usaa.com" but it provides no supporting documentary evidence beyond a few screenshots from its <uss.com> website.1 While this reputational evidence is quite limited, Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's mark is clear as the <us-usaa.com> website makes numerous mentions of Complainant's marks and services. Based on the submitted evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time that it registered the disputed domain name and that it did so in bad faith. Next, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <us-usaa.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent passes itself off as Complainant by confusing and deceiving consumers into thinking that they are dealing with a website that originates with Complainant and is a genuine source for its products. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Tesla Inc. v. Ultimate / Jonathan Littlewood, FA 2052426 (Forum Aug. 2, 2023) (finding bad faith where "Respondent has attempted to commercially gain or otherwise benefit by fraudulently impersonating Complainant to entice shoppers to purchase on Respondent's website"). The Panel references the screenshots of the site resolving from the <us-usaa.com> domain name which are mentioned in the previous section. These show Respondent's use of Complainant's marks as well as descriptions of Complainant's services along with a contact phone number inviting potential customers to engage with Respondent. This gives the clear impression that Respondent's website originates with Complainant and is improperly seeking commercial gain based on confusion with its mark. Based on a preponderance of the evidence presented in this case, the Panel agrees with Complainant's assertion that Respondent is targeting the USAA and USAA.COM marks and is seeking to impersonate Complainant to misleadingly attract internet users to an impersonation website. As such, the Panel finds firm ground upon which to conclude that Respondent both registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and thus under ¶ 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 <us-usaa.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Steven M. Levy, Panelist Dated: July 23, 2026 [1] The Panel notes that, while Complainant submits evidence of its trademark rights in the form of USPTO screenshots, evidence of brand recognition and the scope of a trademark's reputation is not supplied by trademark registrations which only speak to the existence of rights in a mark. Rather, reputational evidence often consists of documentary evidence such as examples of advertising, website and social media pages (including consumer comments), news articles, sponsorships, trade show participation, awards and recognition, consumer surveys, and the like. Here, Complainant mentions some of these items in its Complaint but it does not submit any documentary evidence to support its assertions and, as such, the Panel is not in a position to consider these unsupported factual claims. 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.