Securian Financial Group, Inc. v. [redacted]

Claim Number: FA2109001965252



Complainant is Securian Financial Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA.  Respondent is [redacted] (“Respondent”), California, USA.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.



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 September 24, 2021; the Forum received payment on September 24, 2021.


On September 24, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <> 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 September 28, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 18, 2021 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 September 28, 2021, 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 emails to the Forum, see below.


On October 20, 2021, 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 has served clients since 1880 and has sixty-four billion dollars in assets under management; it provides financial security to over fifteen million people nationwide through insurance, investment, and retirement products; it also provides insurance services. Complainant has rights in the SECURIAN mark through its registration in the United States in 2002.


Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its SECURIAN mark, only differing by the addition of the “.contact” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).


According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is neither an authorized user nor licensee of the SECURIAN mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offer of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent fails to make any active use of the disputed domain name. Respondent previously used the disputed domain name to display pay-per-click hyperlinks related to Complainant’s business.


Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent previously used the disputed domain name to divert users away from Complainant’s business by offering monetized hyperlinks related to Complainant’s business. Furthermore, the disputed domain name is currently inactive. Additionally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SECURIAN mark.


B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In its emails to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: “I want the complainant to take the domain name ( free of any monetary exchange howsoever, and dismiss the case.” Respondent also requests that its name and any other personal information be redacted for medical grounds, stating:


I have a documented mental health history. It has been weeks and this matter has been mentally impactful and tensing on a minute to minute basis and I have tried but not been to cope with having my personal information, like my name, email, phone number, home address, and any other information published online forever associated with this kind of a case. This may also rank on top pages as I do not have much online presence. We live in a fast paced work environment and we have predominately transitioned into gaining information online. Also job decisions can be greatly impacted not necessarily due to right, wrong, or questionable information online but even information which requires further inquiry. University applications can be greatly impacted.


I have a documented mental health history. I want to request ICANN and/or the complainant to at least redact my personal information from this case on medical grounds.


I do not want to submit or reveal my medical documents to anyone, but if required by ICANN, I will do so.



Respondent requests that its personal information be redacted for medical reasons. According to Policy ¶ 4(j), “[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision.” Past panels have redacted respondent’s name in cases of identity theft. In Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <>, FA 362108 (Forum Dec. 30, 2004) and Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellsfargossl>, FA 453727 (Forum May 19, 2005), the panels omitted the respondents’ personal information from the decisions, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(j), in an attempt to protect the respondents who claimed to be victims of identity theft from becoming aligned with acts the actual registrants appeared to have sought to impute to the respondents. In Microsoft Corporation v. [Redacted], FA2007001902858 (Forum July 31, 2020), the Panel redacted the name of the Respondent because “The nominal registrant for the at-issue domain name matches the name of one of Complainant’s employees; however Complainant indicates that the real respondent in interest is not such employee. Rather, the actual registrant of the at-issue domain name falsified the registration record in furtherance of its scheme to use the domain name to masquerade as Complainant to facilitate fraud.”


There is no allegation of identity theft in the instant case. Nevertheless, the Panel accepts, on an exceptional basis pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(j), Respondent’s request to redact its name and personal information.



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:  October 21, 2021



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page