Securian Financial Group, Inc. v. RECRUITING DESK / SECURIAN FINANCIAL GROUP / SECURIAN FINANCIAL GROUP INC
Claim Number: FA2202001983993
Complainant is Securian Financial Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is RECRUITING DESK / SECURIAN FINANCIAL GROUP / SECURIAN FINANCIAL GROUP INC (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <securianfinancialgroupincs.com>, <securianfinancialgroupinc.com>, and <securianfinancialteaminc.com>, registered with Google LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 11, 2022; the Forum received payment on February 11, 2022.
On February 11, 2022, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <securianfinancialgroupincs.com>, <securianfinancialgroupinc.com>, and <securianfinancialteaminc.com> domain names are registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 15, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 7, 2022 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@securianfinancialgroupincs.com, postmaster@securianfinancialgroupinc.com, postmaster@securianfinancialteaminc.com. Also on February 15, 2022, 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 March 11, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
Complainant alleges that the entities controlling the disputed domain names are the same person and/or entity, operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered in close proximity to each other, use the same name servers and resolve to nearly identical webpages. In the absence of any contention to the contrary, the Panel determines that Respondents are the same entity and/or person and will be referred to as “Respondent” throughout.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <securianfinancialgroupincs.com>, <securianfinancialgroupinc.com>, and <securianfinancialteaminc.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SECURIAN mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <securianfinancialgroupincs.com>, <securianfinancialgroupinc.com>, and <securianfinancialteaminc.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <securianfinancialgroupincs.com>, <securianfinancialgroupinc.com>, and <securianfinancialteaminc.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant offers insurance, investment, and retirement products, and holds a registration for the SECURIAN mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,637,008, registered Oct. 15, 2002).
Respondent registered the <securianfinancialgroupincs.com>, <securianfinancialgroupinc.com>, and <securianfinancialteaminc.com> domain names on January 30, 2021, or January 31, 2021, and uses them to resolve to inactive webpages.
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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the SECURIAN mark through its registrations with the USPTO. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant’s registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).).
Respondent’s <securianfinancialgroupincs.com>, <securianfinancialgroupinc.com>, and <securianfinancialteaminc.com> domain names use Complainant’s SECURIAN mark with transposed letters, generic terms, and a gTLD. These changes do not distinguish the domain names from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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).) Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <securianfinancialgroupincs.com>, <securianfinancialgroupinc.com>, and <securianfinancialteaminc.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SECURIAN mark.
The Panel finds that complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show 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 argues that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <securianfinancialgroupincs.com>, <securianfinancialgroupinc.com>, and <securianfinancialteaminc.com> domain names, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and has no license or consent to use the SECURIAN mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Recruiting Desk / SECURIAN FINANCIAL GROUP / SECURIAN FINANCIAL GROUP INC.” However, there is no other evidence to support the notion that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name); see also 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)”).
Complainant also argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the domain names fail to resolve to active webpages. Failing to make an active use of a domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).) Complainant provides screenshots from Respondent’s <securianfinancialgroupincs.com>, <securianfinancialgroupinc.com>, and <securianfinancialteaminc.com> domain names showing inactive webpages. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and used the <securianfinancialgroupincs.com>, <securianfinancialgroupinc.com>, and <securianfinancialteaminc.com> domain names in bad faith by failing to make an active use of the domain names. The Panel agrees, also noting the use of Complainant’s entire mark in all three domain names, and finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”)
The Panel finds that complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <securianfinancialgroupincs.com>, <securianfinancialgroupinc.com>, and <securianfinancialteaminc.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: March 14, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page