Transamerica Corporation v. AMAZING GRACE / OBAREZE OPARAH

Claim Number: FA2002001882685



Complainant is Transamerica Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Gail Podolsky of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Georgia, USA.  Respondent is AMAZING GRACE / OBAREZE OPARAH (“Respondent”), California, USA.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with Wild West Domains, LLC.



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.


Richard Hill as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 10, 2020; the Forum received payment on February 10, 2020.


On February 11, 2020, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 3, 2020 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  Also on February 12, 2020, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did however send e-mails to the Forum, see below.


On March 4, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill, as Panelist.


Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.



Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.



A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is engaged in the sale of life insurance, investment planning, and retirement services. Complaint’s largest subsidiary has been underwriting insurance since 1906 and has had more than $1,055 billion of insurance in force as of December 31, 2016. Complainant has rights in the TRANSAMERICA mark based upon registration in the United States in 1961.


Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its TRANSAMERICA mark, as it contains the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic terms “trust,” and “bank” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).


According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not permitted or licensed to use Complainant’s TRANSAMERICA mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect users to Respondent’s website that directly competes with Complainant’s business.


Further, says Complainant, Respondent has registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users to its competing website for commercial gain. Additionally, Respondent used a privacy service to conceal its identity. Also, Respondent failed to respond to a cease-and-desist letter from Complainant. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge or constructive notice of Complainant’s TRANSAMERICA mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.


B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. However, it its e-mails to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: “We have notified the complainant of our resolve to TRANSFER the said Domain name to their client. … WE DO NOT INTEND TO ENGAGE IN ANY CONTEST. WE ARE READY, WILLING AND PREPARED TO RELINQUISH THE DOMAIN NAME.” And: “We have initiated the transfer with the webmaster and the hosting company. … We again reiterate that we do not intend to contest this request, and we are READY, WILLING AND PREPARED TO comply with the transfer request.”



For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.



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.


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."


In the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.


See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).


Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.


Rights or Legitimate Interests

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.


Registration and Use in Bad Faith

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.



Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.



Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated:  March 5, 2020



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page