DECISION

 

Transamerica Corporation v. quan zhong jun

Claim Number: FA2309002064173

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Transamerica Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Gail Podolsky of Carlton Fields, P.A., Georgia, USA. Respondent is quan zhong jun ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <transamereca.com>, registered with Gname 038 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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 29, 2023; Forum received payment on September 29, 2023.

 

On October 2, 2023, Gname 038 Inc confirmed by email to Forum that the <transamereca.com> domain name is registered with Gname 038 Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Gname 038 Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname 038 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 October 3, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 23, 2023 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@transamereca.com. Also on October 3, 2023, the Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 in Chinese and English.

 

On October 24, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING

The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Chinese. Rule 11(a) provides that the language of this administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise. Complainant requests that the proceeding be conducted in English, noting that the content of Respondent's website is English, including the privacy policy posted on the website. In addition, the Panel notes that the Written Notice of the Complaint was served upon Respondent in both English and Chinese; that Respondent has made no objection to Complainant's request that the proceeding be conducted in English; and that Respondent has been a party to many proceedings under the Policy, many of which have been conducted in English and involved English-language domain names. See, e.g., Cbocs Properties, Inc. v. 权中俊 (Quan Zhong Jun), D2023-1088 (WIPO May 15, 2023) (ordering transfer of <crqckerbarrel.com>); Blackbaud, Inc v. 权中俊 (Quan Zhong Jun), D2022-0108 (WIPO Feb. 25, 2022) (ordering transfer of <signinblackbaud.com>); Oracle International Corp. v. Quan Zhong Jun / Li Jin Liang, FA 1907232 (Forum Sept. 8, 2020) (ordering transfer of <oaclecloud.com>, <oracleclod.com>, <oracleclou.com>, <oraclecoud.com>, and <oralecloud.com>); Tommy John, Inc. v. Quan Zhong Jun, FA 1893483 (Forum June 7, 2020) (ordering transfer of <tommyyjohn.com> and <tommyjohnn.com>).

 

Under the circumstances, the Panel finds it likely that Respondent is conversant in the English language, has received adequate notice of this proceeding, and has chosen not to participate. The Panel sees no reason to require Complainant to bear the burden and expense of arranging for a Chinese translation that is likely unnecessary to afford proper notice to Respondent, and that in any event Respondent is likely to ignore. The Panel decides that English shall be the language of this proceeding.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a holding company for a group of companies engaged in the sale of life insurance, investment planning, and retirement services, including World Financial Group Insurance Agency LLC. Complainant's largest subsidiary, Transamerica Life Insurance Company, had more than $1 trillion of insurance in force at the end of 2016. Complainant has used the TRANSAMERICA mark since 1929, and states that its companies spend millions of dollars every year to advertise and promote the mark. Complainant owns numerous United States trademark registrations for TRANSAMERICA and related marks.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name <transamereca.com> in October 2022. The domain name is being used to display a parked page composed of pay-per-click links related to insurance and financial services. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <transamereca.com> is confusingly similar to its TRANSAMERICA mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <transamereca.com> incorporates a typographical variation of Complainant's registered TRANSAMERICA trademark, replacing the letter "i" with an "E" and adding the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Transamerica Corp. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 2055618 (Forum Aug. 26, 2023) (finding <transameriea.com> confusingly similar to TRANSAMERICA); Transamerica Corp. v. Zhichao Yang, FA 2044159 (Forum June 22, 2023) (finding <transamerics.com> confusingly similar to TRANSAMERICA); Transamerica Corp. v. Xu Hai Min, FA 2020958 (Forum Dec. 20, 2022) (finding <transanerica.com> confusingly similar to TRANSAMERICA); Transamerica Corp. v. Gi Hwan Oh / NameInfra.com, FA 2017556 (Forum Nov. 21, 2022) (finding <transamerika.com> confusingly similar to TRANSAMERICA); Transamerica Corp. v. Yang Zhi Chao, FA 2010710 (Forum Oct. 7, 2022) (finding <transcamerica.com>, <transamericao.com>, <trqnsamerica.com>, and <transamertica.com> confusingly similar to TRANSAMERICA). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and its sole apparent use has been to display a parked page composed of pay-per-click links to competitors of Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Transamerica Corp. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Transamerica Corp. v. Zhichao Yang, supra (same); Transamerica Corp. v. Xu Hai Min, supra (same); Transamerica Corp. v. Gi Hwan Oh / NameInfra.com, supra (same); Transamerica Corp. v. Yang Zhi Chao, supra (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent registered a domain name corresponding to a misspelling of Complainant's well-known registered mark, in an obvious instance of typosquatting, and is using the domain name to display pay-per-click links that promote competing services, presumably for commercial gain. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Transamerica Corp. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Transamerica Corp. v. Zhichao Yang, supra (same); Transamerica Corp. v. Xu Hai Min, supra (same); Transamerica Corp. v. Gi Hwan Oh / NameInfra.com, supra (same); Transamerica Corp. v. Yang Zhi Chao, supra (same). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <transamereca.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: October 25, 2023