DECISION

 

Transamerica Corporation v. VMI VMI

Claim Number: FA2507002165597

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Transamerica Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Gail Podolsky of Podolsky Law LLC, Georgia, USA. Respondent is VMI VMI ("Respondent"), Cayman Islands.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <transameica.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Petter Rindforth as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 14, 2025; Forum received payment on July 14, 2025.

 

On July 14, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <transameica.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 July 15, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 4, 2025 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@transameica.com. Also on July 15, 2025, 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 August 5, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Petter Rindforth 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 is a holding company for a group of subsidiaries engaged in the sale of life insurance, investment planning, and retirement services. Complainant's largest subsidiary has been underwriting insurance since 1906 and has had more than $1,055 billion of insurance in force as of December 31, 2016. The name "Transamerica" has been used since 1929 as a trade name and service mark.

 

Complainant has acquired numerous domain names via domain disputes, including those incorporating variations of the TRANSAMERICA, through enforcement efforts aimed at protecting its marks from cybersquatting and online infringement.

 

Since December 5, 1994, Complainant has owned and used the domain <transamerica.com> to offer its financial services products.

 

On October 2, 2011, Respondent registered the disputed domain name <transameica.com>. As of July 14, 2025, Respondent's website located at <transameica.com> brings the Internet user to a website containing links to Complainant's competitors which offer services in direct competition with those offered by Complainant.

 

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's TRANSAMERICA trademark as it incorporates "transamerica" in the name. Respondent's intentional misspelling of TRANSAMERICA to "transameica.com" is to take advantage of Internet users' typographical errors and create a situation of deception and confusion among consumers attempting to locate Complainant's website at www.transamerica.com.

 

Complainant never authorized Respondent to register or use the TRANSAMERICA mark in any manner. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <transameica.com> domain name under ¶ 4(c) of the UDRP Policy.  Complainant is unaware of any evidence that Respondent has ever commonly been known by the name "Transaerica" (or variations thereof) prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name. Therefore, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

 

Respondent's use of the <transameica.com> domain name is "evidence of bad faith pursuant to [UDRP] Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name presumably commercially benefits from the misleading domain name by receiving 'click-through-fees.'"  Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.

 

Respondent's use of a privacy service is additional evidence of bad faith under the Policy.

 

Furthermore, Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name in spite of actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the TRANSAMERICA mark, amounts to bad faith registration and use pursuant to [UDRP] Policy ¶4(a)(iii).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of a number of U.S. trademark registrations for TRANSAMERICA, including but not limited to:

 

No. 1,129,244 TRANSAMERICA (word), registered on January 15, 1980 for goods in Intl Class 16;

No. 1,202,289 TRANSAMERICA (word), registered on July 20, 1982 for services in Intl Class 36; and

No. 1,635,682 TRANSAMERICA (word), registered on February 19, 1991 for services in Intl Classes 35, 36, 37, 39 and 41.

 

The disputed domain name <transameica.com> was registered on October 2, 2011.

 

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 Complainant claims rights in the TRANSAMERICA trademark based upon registration with the USPTO. Registration with the USPTO is generally sufficient to establish rights in a mark per 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)). Complainant provides evidence of its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,129,244, registered January 15, 1980). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the TRANSAMERICA trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent's <transameica.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's TRANSAMERICA trademark. Misspelling a trademark and adding a gTLD is not enough to distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Omaha Steaks International, Inc. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1610122 (Forum July 9, 2015) (finding, "The domain name differs from the mark only in that the domain name substitutes the letter 'a' in the word 'steak' with the letter 'c' and adds the generic Top Level Domain ('gTLD') '.com.'  These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."). The disputed domain name in the present case incorporates a minor misspelling of the TRANSAMERICA trademark, merely deleting the letter "r", and then adding the gTLD ".com".

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the TRANSAMERICA trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <transameica.com> domain name because Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's TRANSAMERICA trademark (or any obvious misspellings thereof) and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Guardair Corporation v. Pablo Palermo, FA1407001571060 (Forum Aug. 28, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <guardair.com> domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information lists "Pablo Palermo" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's trademark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "VMI VMI". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the <transameica.com> domain name to feature sponsored third party links, some of which lead to competitors of Complainant. Using a disputed domain name to offer third party links to competing websites is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. GEORGE WASHERE, FA 1785311 (Forum June 7, 2018) ("Respondent's confusingly similar <esecuretdbank.com> domain name references a website displaying links to competing third parties as well as links to Complainant and various unrelated third parties. Using the domain name in this manner shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Here, Complainant has provided screenshots of the disputed domain name's resolving site, displaying the aforementioned links for insurance services. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the <transameica.com> domain name in bad faith because the domain name presumably commercially benefits from the misleading domain name by receiving 'click-through-fees.'" Use of a disputed domain name to display competing hyperlinks may evidence bad faith disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Transamerica Corporation v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1798316 (Forum Aug. 20, 2018) ("Respondent's use of the domain name to link to competitors of Complainant, presumably generating pay-per-click or referral fees for Respondent, is indicative of bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv)."). As previously noted, Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent's websites, which displays links to insurance-related websites in competition with Complainant. The Panel therefore agrees with the Complainant's conclusion, and finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).

 

Complainant also argues that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the TRANSAMERICA trademark when the <transameica.com> domain name was registered. While constructive knowledge is insufficient to show bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a trademark demonstrates bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and may be shown through the use a respondent makes of the mark. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also University of Rochester v. Park HyungJin, FA1410001587458 (Forum Dec. 9, 2014) (". . .the Panel infers Respondent's actual knowledge here based on Respondent's complete use of the PERIFACTS mark in the <perifacts.com> domain name to promote links related to the field of obstetrics, where Complainant's mark is used."). Complainant argues that Respondent should be presumed to have knowledge of Complainant's trademarks and reputation since the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's trademark and domain name in its entirety (albeit with the intentional deletion of the letter "r"). The Panel agrees with the Complainant's conclusion, especially as the domain name is an obvious misspelling of complainant's trademark and is linked to a web site with links to competing services.

 

The Panel therefore clearly finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <transameica.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Petter Rindforth, Panelist

Dated: August 18, 2025