Transamericaalert.com

The timeline behind transamericaalert.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. silly thing Claim Number: FA2608002239656 PARTIES Complainant is Transamerica Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Gail Podolsky of Podolsky Law LLC, Georgia, USA. Respondent is silly thing ("Respondent"), Oklahoma, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <transamericaalert.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 14, 2026; Forum received payment on August 14, 2026. On August 17, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <transamericaalert.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 August 18, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 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@transamericaalert.com. Also on August 18, 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 September 9, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 i) Complainant is a holding company for a group of subsidiaries specializing in the sale of life insurance, investment planning, and retirement services. Complainant's largest subsidiary, Transamerica Life Insurance Company, has been underwriting insurance since 1906. Complainant's subsidiaries and their predecessors have used the name TRANSAMERICA since 1929 as a trade name and service mark. Complainant's subsidiaries have advertised and promoted TRANSAMERICA as a trade name and service mark for many years in national consumer publications. Furthermore, Complainant's TRANSAMERICA trade name is advertised by its subsidiaries across multiple websites. Complainant has established rights in the TRANSAMERICA mark, inter alia, through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,129,244, registered January 15, 1980). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's TRANSAMERICA mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety. ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not been authorized to use Complainant's mark. Moreover, Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is not in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. Additionally, the disputed domain name is listed as a "dangerous site." The associated website is designed to mislead the public into falsely believing that Respondent, its domain name, and any emails sent incorporating the infringing domain name originate from Complainant, for the purpose of phishing, identity theft, and otherwise creating security risks. iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Specifically, Respondent registered and is using the infringing domain name 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 mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement thereof. Respondent's use of a privacy service serves as additional evidence of bad faith. Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name, despite having actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the TRANSAMERICA mark, amounts to bad faith registration and use. Respondent's domain name registration serves only to cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers, especially those attempting to locate Complainant's website. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on October 28, 2025. 2. Complainant has established rights in the TRANSAMERICA mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,129,244, registered January 15, 1980). 3. The disputed domain name is listed as a "dangerous site." According to Google Safe Browsing, "[a]ttackers on the site…might trick you into installing software or revealing things like your passwords, phone, or credit card numbers." The associated website was recently found to be involved in a phishing scheme. 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 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 the TRANSAMERICA mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,129,244, registered January 15, 1980). The registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the TRANSAMERICA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name, <transamericaalert.com>, is confusingly similar to its TRANSAMERICA mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name merely adds the generic term "alert" to Complainant's mark. The addition of a generic term and a gTLD does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's TRANSAMERICA mark 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), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark. Additionally, Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS data, can be used as evidence to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS information lists "silly thing" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant contends that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the disputed domain name is listed as a "dangerous site." Respondent is using the disputed domain name and email addresses associated with the domain name to conduct a phishing scheme in which it sends emails to Complainant's actual and potential customers, pretending to be Complainant, in order to engage in unlawful and deceptive acts, i.e., harvesting customer account information and login information, and stealing monetary funds. When a disputed domain name is used for malicious purposes, such as distributing malware or conducting phishing activities, it does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1785199 (Forum June 5, 2018) ("Respondent uses the <coechella.com> domain name to direct internet users to a website which is used to attempt to install malware on visiting devices. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). The Panel notes that, based on the screenshot of Google Safe Browsing for the disputed domain name, "[a]ttackers on the site…might trick you into installing software or revealing things like your passwords, phone, or credit card numbers." The associated website was recently found to be involved in a phishing scheme. Based on this evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website that attempts to install malware on visiting devices and conduct phishing activities. Using the disputed domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or to make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the considerations above. All of these matters establish the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response, nor has it attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, as the disputed domain name is being employed to distribute malware and to engage in phishing activities. Where a domain name is used for malicious purposes, such as malware distribution and phishing activities, panels have consistently found bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Asbury Communities, Inc. v. Tiffany Hedges, FA 1785054 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("The Panel here finds that Respondent [installation of malware] further supports the conclusion that Respondent registered and used the <asburymethodistvillage.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). As previously noted, Complainant provides evidence supporting these claims, including the use of the disputed domain name to induce Internet users to install suspicious malware for phishing purposes. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent's conduct disrupts Complainant's business and constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name for the purpose of gaining commercial benefits, under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv) of the Policy. Next, Complainant contends that Respondent had constructive or actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the TRANSAMERICA mark prior to registering the disputed domain name, based on Respondent's use of Complainant's mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), actual knowledge may be established through the totality of the circumstances surrounding the registration of the disputed domain name. See Google Inc. v. Ahmed Humood, FA 1591796 (Forum Jan. 7, 2015) ("This Panel makes that inference; Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time of domain name registration based on the fame of Complainant's GOOGLE mark and Respondent's use of one of the disputed domain names to detail Internet domain name registration and maintenance services related to an in competition with Complainant."). The Panel notes that 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, Transamerica Life Insurance Company, has been underwriting insurance since 1906. Complainant's subsidiaries and their predecessors have used the name TRANSAMERICA as a trade name and service mark since 1929. Complainant's subsidiaries spend millions of dollars annually to extensively promote the TRANSAMERICA name and service mark across various media, including television, point of sale materials, and major national publications. Given the fame of Complainant's TRANSAMERICA mark and the manner in which the disputed domain name is used, the Panel infers that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. This supports a finding of bad faith registration 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 <transamericaalert.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: September 9, 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.