DECISION

 

Securian Financial Group, Inc. v. xu hai min

Claim Number: FA2310002068965

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Securian Financial Group, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is xu hai min ("Respondent"), Singapore.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <securianinsurance.com>, registered with Dynadot Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 31, 2023; Forum received payment on October 31, 2023.

 

On November 1, 2023, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <securianinsurance.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 November 2, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 22, 2023 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@securianinsurance.com. Also on November 2, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On November 24, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is the owner of the SECURIAN FINANCIAL SERVICES and SECURIAN trademarks used in connection with retirement, insurance, and investment products. Complainant 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. Complainant also provides insurance services. Complainant has used the SECURIAN mark in commerce continuously since at least as early as 2001. Complainant registered the SECURIAN mark in the United States in 2002. The mark is well known.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its SECURIAN mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "insurance" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use its mark in any way. Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website displays pay-per-click advertising hyperlinks to services that compete with those of Complainant.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith as the resolving website displays competing advertising hyperlinks. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. Respondent had actual prior knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SECURIAN mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark SECURIAN and uses it to provide retirement, insurance, and investment products. The mark is well known.

 

Complainant's rights in its mark date back to 2002.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2023.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The resolving website displays advertising links to services that compete with those of Complainant.

 

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 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's SECURIAN mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "insurance" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). This is not sufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Lincoln Bauer, FA 1423230 (Forum Feb. 21, 2012), (explaining that "the addition of generic words . . . and the top level designation .com in the Domain Name do not serve to distinguish the Domain Names"); MGM Resorts International v. Domain Admin / High Tech Investments LTD, FA 1698742 (Forum Nov. 28, 2016) (holding that transferring a domain name to a Complainant is proper when Respondent uses a mark that "wholly incorporates the mark and merely adds the generic term 'insider' and the '.com'"); Kohler Co. v. I S / ICS INC,  FA 1763127 (Forum Jan. 16, 2018) (explaining that the addition of a generic term fails to distinguish a domain name for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "xu hai min". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The resolving website displays pay-per-click advertising hyperlinks for services that compete with those of Complainant. Use of a domain name to redirect users to unrelated third-party sites (whether or not they compete with Complainant) is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. SeeTrulia, Inc. v. Armen A, FA 1586491 (Forum Dec. 2, 2014) (finding that a parked page containing pay-per-click advertising links that resolve to the websites of Complainant's competitors did "not constitute a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services, or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial fair use"); see also Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int'l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant); see also Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA 1629217 (Forum Aug. 10, 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 as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a web page that featured links to services that competed with those of the complainant). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website displays advertising links to services that compete with those of Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to redirect consumers to competing goods or services can be evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Guidehouse LLP v. Zhi Chao Yang, FA 2013476 (Forum Oct. 31, 2022) ("[T]he resolving website displays advertising links to competing services. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); see also block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) ("Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another."); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1615034 (Forum June 4, 2015) (holding that the respondent's use of the <capitaloneonebank.com> domain name to display links to the complainant's competitors, such as Bank of America, Visa, Chase and American Express constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1598657 (Forum Feb. 20, 2015) ("This Panel agrees that Respondent's use as shown in Exhibits C-D illustrates that Respondent here seeks commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion, as competing hyperlinks have been found to establish evidence of intent to seek commercial gain through referral fees, and thus demonstrates bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).

 

Further, Complainant provides evidence showing that Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in several prior UDRP cases. This evinces a pattern of bad faith registration and use per 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)."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: November 25, 2023