Securian Financial Group, Inc. v. Meng Dan Qian
Claim Number: FA2005001898280
Complainant is Securian Financial Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, United States. Respondent is Meng Dan Qian (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <securianretirementceter.com>, registered with West263 International Limited.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 29, 2020; the Forum received payment on May 29, 2020.
On June 1, 2020, West263 International Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <securianretirementceter.com> domain name is registered with West263 International Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. West263 International Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the West263 International Limited 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 2, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 22, 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 postmaster@securianretirementceter.com. Also on June 2, 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.
On June 29, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant, Securian Financial, is a financial services provider.
Complainant has rights in the SECURIAN mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <securianretirementceter.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SECURIAN mark, as the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic phrase “retirement center” along with a “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <securianretirementceter.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use the SECURIAN mark in any manner. Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to host pay-per-click links that feature Complainant’s competitors.
Respondent registered and is using the <securianretirementceter.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent diverted Complainant’s customers to the domain name address where it hosted pay-per-click links to Complainant’s competitors. Respondent has a pattern of registering trademark similar domain names. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SECURIAN marks.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in SECURIAN.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the SECURIAN mark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in SECURIAN.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name provide pay-per-click links to third parties including competitors of Complainant.
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. 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”).
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language ‑to wit, the Respondent’s <securianretirementceter.com> domain and website is entirely in English. See Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, D2008-1191 (WIPO October 15, 2008) (holding that proceedings could be conducted in English even though the registration agreement was in Chinese where “the disputed domain resolves to a website [that] is exclusively in English, from which can be reasonably presumed that the Respondent has the ability to communicate in English in order to conduct his business over the website in English”).
After considering the circumstance of the present case and Respondent’s failure to respond, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of the SECURIAN mark with the USPTO sufficiently demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under 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)).
Further, Respondent’s <securianretirementceter.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire SECURIAN trademark, followed by the descriptive term “retirement center,” with all followed by the generic top-level domain name “.com”. The differences between Complainant’s trademark and Respondent’s domain name do nothing to distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant’s trademark under the Policy. In fact, the inclusion of the term “retirement center” in the domain name only adds to any confusion resulting from Respondent’s unauthorized use of Complainant’s trademark in its domain name. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <securianretirementceter.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SECURIAN trademark. See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Meng Dan Qian” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <securianretirementceter.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <securianretirementceter.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Moreover, Respondent uses the <securianretirementceter.com> domain name to address a website that presents pay-per-click links to third parties. Some of these links offer services that compete with those services offered by Complainant. Respondent’s use of the domain name in this manner indicates 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). See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, there is evidence from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As mentioned above regarding rights and interests, Respondent uses its <securianretirementceter.com> domain name to address a website hosting pay-per-click links to Complainant’s competitors and others. Naturally, Respondent commercially benefits from pay-per-click advertisements. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar <securianretirementceter.com> domain name in this manner shows bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.com Legal, FA1506001622088 (Forum July 10, 2015) (“The use of a domain name’s resolving website to host links to competitors of a complainant shows intent to disrupt that complainant’s business, thereby showing bad faith in use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Staples, Inc. and Staples the Office Superstores, LLC v. HANNA EL HIN / DTAPLES.COM, FA1404001557007 (Forum June 6, 2014) (“Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <dtaples.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host third-party links to Complainant’s competitors from which Respondent is presumed to obtain some commercial benefit.”).
Next, Respondent appears to have registered other domain names that infringe on the rights of brand owners, including the domain names <secutian.com> and <seuriun.com>. These domain names were registered concurrently with the registration of the at-issue domain name, on the same server as the at-issue domain name, and they both appear to address the same website as does the at-issue domain name <securianretirementceter.com>. Although the registrant names differ on these domain names, the common connections between all of the domain names indicate a pattern of cybersquatting that can be linked to Respondent. The pattern suggests Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) (“The record contains evidence of Respondents previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).
Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SECURIAN mark when it registered <securianretirementceter.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s SECURIAN trademark and from Respondent’s inclusion of terms related to Complainant’s financial business within the at-issue domain name. Respondent’s registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights in such domain name shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <securianretirementceter.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: June 29, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page