DECISION
Transamerica Corporation v. Liang Luo
Claim Number: FA2511002189629
PARTIES
Complainant is Transamerica Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Gail Podolsky of Podolsky Law LLC, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Liang Luo ("Respondent"), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <transamericaannuities.biz>, registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that it has acted independently and impartially and to the best of its knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 18, 2025; Forum received payment on November 18, 2025.
On November 19, 2025, Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <transamericaannuities.biz> domain name is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.
Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. 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 21, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 11, 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@transamericaannuities.biz.
Also on November 21, 2025, the Chinese and English 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 in Chinese and English.
On December 12, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING
Addressing a preliminary issue of the appropriate language of this proceeding, Complainant submits that "[p]ursuant to Paragraph 11(a) of the UDRP Rules, Complainant requests that the Panel determine that the proceedings will be conducted in the English language. Respondent's registration of the transamericaannuities.biz domain name serves only to cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers attempting to locate Complainant's website. Indeed, as demonstrated by (an exhibit) to the Complaint, the content of Respondent's transamericaannuities.biz website is in English. Furthermore, the privacy policy and legal terms for Respondent's transamericaannuities.biz website are in English. Under such circumstances, it would be sufficient for this decision to be rendered in English in accordance with Paragraph 11(a) of the UDRP Rules. Previous panels have considered the language of the website in determining the proceedings' language. See, e.g., See, e.g., WordPress Foundation v. duanxiangwang / duanxiangwang, FA1504001613675 (NAF June 1, 2015) (ordering the transfer of five domain names to Complainant); Pentair, Inc. v. Pham Dinh Nhut, D2014-2161, p. 3 (WIPO Feb. 9, 2015) ("[Respondent] appears to have some level of English considering the contents of the website being in English. This would be sufficient according to previous panels for this decision to be rendered in English. In these circumstances the Panel decides that the decision will be rendered in English in accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules."); Esteva Oommm, S.L. v. Pham Dinh Nhut, D2014-2095, p. 2 (WIPO Jan. 27, 2015) (The Panel noted that the privacy policy accessible at the bottom of the website was in English, and that the time and cost involved in translating documents would be substantial, and "that the Respondent has used English in the website operated under the disputed domain name, and is of the opinion that it is reasonable to assume that the Respondent is not unfamiliar with the English language. In these circumstances, the Panel decides to exercise his discretion under paragraph 11a of the UDRP Rules, to the effect that the language of the proceeding should be English.").
On November 11,2025, the Registrar confirmed that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese.
On November 21, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 11, 2025. Notwithstanding having received notice of this proceeding, Respondent has failed, neglected or refused to file a timely Response to the Complaint.
Rule 11(a) of the Rules states that the default language of the administrative proceeding is the language of the domain name registration agreement. However, the Panel has discretion to determine otherwise, considering fairness, parties' language proficiency, cost, and potential delays due to translation.
What Complainant describes as "Respondent's website" is on the balance of probabilities the Registrar's parking page, or a similar parking page that generates links to third party websites.
Furthermore, Complainant has not submitted any screen capture or other evidence of the "the privacy policy and legal terms for Respondent's transamericaannuities.biz website".
Where domain names resolve to parking pages, the terms and conditions are frequently those of the service provider of the parking page.
Complainant has not shown the parking page itself, but rather the results generated by a Domain Tools search.
The evidence that Respondent is proficient in English is weak, and notably Respondent is not offering the disputed domain name for sale but on the balance of probabilities Respondent has little or no engagement with the web page to which the disputed domain name resolves other than to collect pay-per-click revenue.
Nonetheless the record shows that Respondent has been properly served with notice of this Complaint in both English and Chinese but has not responded in any way. Also, the evidence shows that on the balance of probabilities Respondent is using the English language on its parking page to generate pay per click revenue. So Respondent has been notified in Chinese that this proceeding is in being, and has further been notified that the Complaint has been served in the English language.
The Panel having considered the fairness of proceeding in Chinese, the respective Parties' language proficiency, cost, and potential delays due to translation the panel exercises its discretion pursuant to Rules ¶ 11a that the language of the proceeding should be English. In doing so the Panel is satisfied that Respondent has been notified of this Complaint in both English and Chinese and has not responded to Complainant's application to proceed in English.
Furthermore, the proceeding were in the Chinese language, the proceeding would be unnecessarily delayed and complicated by the requirement to have all exhibits translated from Chinese into English, at a significant cost to Complainant and delay to the proceedings.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant claims rights in the TRANSAMERICA trademark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registrations for the mark described below and extensive use of the mark in its insurance business which was established in 1906.
Complainant further submits that its group managed more than $1,055 billion of insurance policies in force as of December 31, 2016.
It further submits that Complainant's TRANSAMERICA name and marks are prominently advertised and used on multiple websites operated by companies within Complainant's group, including but not limited to <www.transamerica.com>, <www.taretirement.com>, <www.transamericaseriestrust.com>, <www.transamericaworksite.com>, and <www.transamericaemployeebenefits.com>.
It is argued that such extensive and longstanding commercial use of the TRANSAMERICA marks in connection with financial and insurance services has established substantial goodwill and reputation in those marks.
Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name <transamericaannuities.biz> is confusingly similar to Complainant's TRANSAMERICA mark because it incorporates TRANSAMERICA in its entirety.
Complainant argues that the incorporation of a complainant's mark in its entirety into a domain name at issue is sufficient to establish confusing similarity under the Policy. This principle has been consistently recognized by panels, including in cases such as Perot Sys. Corp. v. Brown, FA 97303 (Forum June 25, 2001) (finding the domain names <urn2perotsystems.net> and <urn2perotsystems.org> were confusingly similar to Complainant's PEROT SYSTEMS mark).
It is further argued that the addition of the descriptive term "annuities" does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the TRANSAMERICA mark. Panels established under the Policy have consistently found that adding a descriptive or generic term relevant to a complainant's business does not avoid confusing similarity. See Transamerica Corporation v. Galib Gahramanov / G Domains, FA 2174621 (Forum Sept. 30, 2025) (ordering transfer of <transamericaannunities.com>).
Complainant adds that the addition of the generic Top‑Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.biz> does not overcome confusing similarity. Panels routinely hold that the addition of any required TLD—".com," ".net," ".biz," ".info," or ".org"—is technically necessary for domain name registration and does not carry source‑distinguishing significance. See, e.g., See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Michael Folan, FA 1076262, p. 3 (Forum Oct. 26, 2007) ("the addition of ... a top-level domain is required for all domain names."); Google Inc. v. Tobec Acquisitions, FA 1296156 (Forum Jan. 15, 2010) (finding that the addition of a gTLD, whether it be ".com," ".net," ".biz," ".info," or ".org" is "insufficient to adequately distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's mark").
Secondly, Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing that:
· Complainant asserts that it has never authorized Respondent to register or use the TRANSAMERICA mark in any manner;
· Complainant is unaware of any evidence that Respondent has ever been commonly known by the name "Transamerica Annuities" (or any variation thereof) prior to Respondent's registration of <transamericaannuities.biz>, citing AAA Employment, Inc. v. Ahearn and Assoc., FA 520670 (Forum Sept. 6, 2005) (noting that evidence must establish that Respondent was commonly known by the domain name at the time of registration).
Complainant refers to the screen capture of the web page to which the disputed domain name resolves which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint and further argues that
· Respondent's use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Paragraph 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Paragraph 4(c)(iii);
· Respondent's website at <transamericaannuities.biz> contains links to Complainant's competitors offering services that directly compete with Complainant's offerings;
· Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to a site populated with such links is inconsistent with any bona fide offering of goods or services;
· It has been recognized that such conduct demonstrates a commercial intent to capitalize on confusion. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. xi wang, FA 1579058 (Forum Oct. 13, 2014) (finding a parked webpage with links, some directly competitive, supported bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv));
· the disputed domain name resolves to a landing page intended to make commercial gain via click‑through revenue and other forms of monetization associated with pay‑per‑click landing pages, and such use is neither bona fide nor legitimate under the Policy. See Google Inc. v. Aloysius Thevarajah, FA 1295342 (Forum Dec. 31, 2009) (holding that resolving to a parked site with unrelated hyperlinks and presumed click‑through fees constitutes bad faith registration and use under ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Additionally, Complainant contends that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of <transamericaannuities.biz>, rendering Paragraph 4(c)(iii) inapplicable. See CanadaDrugs.com Partnership v. MyCanadaDrugs LLC, FA 429088 (Forum Apr. 7, 2005) (holding Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) inapplicable where respondent was not making noncommercial or fair use).
Thirdly Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith arguing as follows :-
Complainant argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain name <transamericaannuities.biz> in spite of actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the TRANSAMERICA mark, which supports a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Panels have recognized that there is a legal presumption of bad faith when a respondent reasonably should have been aware of a complainant's trademark rights, whether through actual knowledge of the mark's fame and use or constructive notice via registrations. See Digi International Inc. v. DDI Systems, FA 124506 (Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (recognizing a presumption of bad faith when respondent reasonably should have been aware of complainant's trademarks).
Complainant adds that Respondent is presumed to have knowledge of Complainant's TRANSAMERICA mark and of Complainant's domain names and websites such as <www.transamerica.com>, <www.transamericannuity.com>, and <www.transamercaannuities.com> because Respondent's domain name <transamericaannuities.biz> incorporates Complainant's mark and domain compositions in their entirety.
Panels have previously found that registration of domain names containing confusingly similar versions of a complainant's mark, especially where the mark is registered with the USPTO and widely used, suggests that the respondent knew of complainant's rights when registering the domain names. See The PNC Financial Services Group Inc. v. Unasi Inc., FA 535925 (Forum Sept. 22, 2005) ("Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names, which contain confusingly similar versions of Complainant's PNC, PNCBANK and PNCBANK.COM marks, and Complainant's registration of its marks with the USPTO suggest [sic] that Respondent knew of Complainant's rights in the mark when Respondent registered the domain names.").
Complainant emphasizes Respondent's intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's TRANSAMERICA mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the services offered through links on Respondent's site.
It is contended that panels established under the Policy regularly find registration and use in bad faith where a respondent's website displays pay‑per‑click links or other competitive content designed to monetize user confusion. See for example Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. (Undisclosed), FA 1337431 (Forum Sept. 12, 2010) (finding that use of a disputed domain name to display various third‑party links to competitors' websites, presumably for financial gain, is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Complainant also invokes Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), contending that Respondent's use disrupts Complainant's business by diverting consumers to competitor offerings and interfering with Complainant's ability to reach its customers online under its well‑known TRANSAMERICA brand. It is argued that such disruption caused by Respondent's use of the disputed domain name supports a finding that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent's use of a privacy service to register the disputed domain name is further evidence of bad faith under the Policy. Complainant submits that while privacy shields may be legitimate in some circumstances, panels have found that where a disputed domain name fully encompasses a complainant's reputed mark and is used to divert Internet users, the concealment of a respondent's true identity more likely facilitates cybersquatting. See Burt's Bees, Inc. v. Private Registration, WIPO Case D2011‑1808 (observing that the use of a privacy or identity shield, under the circumstances presented, supports a finding of bad faith), and Spin Master Ltd. v. DCSTEAM INC., FA 1210515 (Forum Aug. 5, 2008) (noting that concealment of respondent's true identity is indicative of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant is a provider of financial and insurance services and is the owner of a large portfolio of registered trademarks and service marks including:
· United States registered trademark TRANSAMERICA, registration number 1,129,244, registered on the Principal Register on January 15, 1980 for goods in international class 16;
· United States registered service mark TRANSAMERICA (and design), registration number 1,635,681,registered on the Principal Register on February 19, 1991 for services in international classes 35, 36, 37, 39 and 41.
Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains numerous websites, including relevantly its website at <www.transsamericaannuities.com>.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 11, 2025, and resolves to a website that contains links purporting to generate pay-per-click revenue.
There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs, and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name.
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
Complainant has provided uncontested convincing evidence of its rights in the TRANSAMERICA mark established by its ownership of the abovementioned portfolio of trademark and service mark registrations and extensive use of the mark in its insurance business which was established in 1906.
The group has established a substantial protectable goodwill since it was established, and as of December 31, 2016, its group managed more than $1,055 billion of insurance policies in force.
The disputed domain name <transamericaannuities.biz> consists of Complainant's TRANSAMERICA mark in its entirety in combination with the element "annuities", and the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.biz>.
It is well established that, as in the present case, it is sufficient for a complainant to establish that the domain name at issue contains the mark relied upon in its entirety, to satisfy the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant's mark is the dominant and only distinctive element in the disputed domain name, and the additional generic and descriptive element "annuities" does not prevent a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark
In the circumstances of this Complaint, the gTLD extension <.biz> within the disputed domain name may be ignored for the purposes of comparing Complainant's marks and the disputed domain name, because it would be considered by Internet users to be a necessary technical element for a domain name.
Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above.
The evidence shows that Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name or Complainant's mark, nor does it engage in any business activity except to arrange for, or permit the disputed domain name to resolve to a web page that on the balance of probabilities generates pay-per-click revenue for Respondent.
It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.
Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The disputed domain name consists of Complainant's TRANSAMERICA mark in its entirety, in combination with the word "annuities" which is a reference to the insurance and pensions industries.
The earliest trademark registration relied upon by Complainant is United States registered trademark TRANSAMERICA, registration number 1,129,244, registered on the Principal Register on January 15, 1980, whereas the disputed domain name was not registered until September 11, 2025.
Complainant has a long history and current reputation in providing insurance services, having been established in 1906, and as of December 31, 2016, the group managed more than $1,055 billion of insurance policies in force.
There appears to be no plausible reason for registering the disputed domain name other than to create the false impression of an association with Complainant, its trademarks, product ranges and goodwill.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that when registering the disputed domain name, the registrant must, on the balance of probabilities have become aware of Complainant's own identical domain name and the website to which it resolves at <www.transsamericaannuities.com>.
On the balance of probabilities, therefore, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name was in fact chosen and registered with Complainant's mark in mind with the intention of taking predatory advantage of Complainant's rights and goodwill in Complainant's TRANSAMERICA mark.
The uncontested evidence in the form of screen capture which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint illustrates that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page that purports to provide links to third parties. When the exhibited screen capture was made, the links on offer to the public were "Get Best Auto Insurance Quote", "Homeowners Quotes" and "Car and Home Insurance Company".
Such parking pages generally provide such links for remuneration which is shared with the domain name owner. The featured links generally dynamically generated, and the links provided change depending on the device used. Even though all visitors to the web page may not see the links to providers of auto and home insurance, Complainant has demonstrated that such links have appeared in its search results.
Because the disputed domain name was on the balance of probabilities registered with Complainant's mark in mind it must follow that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a parking page that purports to target Complainant and its goodwill, and to monetize the disputed domain name to generate pay-per-click revenue.
Such use of Complainant's trademark within the disputed domain name as the address of the resolving website is on the balance of probabilities intentionally intended to attract and confuse Internet users and cause them to divert their Internet traffic intended for Complainant and misdirect it to Respondent's web page by creating a likelihood of initial interest confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's web page.
Such use constitutes bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.
As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in 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 <transamericaannuities.biz> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
______________________________
James Bridgeman SC, Panelist
Dated: December 15, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page