DECISION

 

Transamerica Corporation v. zhang wei / zhangwei

Claim Number: FA2601002199665

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Transamerica Corporation ("Complainant" or "Transamerica"), represented by Gail Podolsky of Podolsky Law LLC, Georgia, USA. Respondent is zhang wei / zhangwei ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <transamerrica.com> ("Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Sav.com, LLC - 18.

 

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 L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 14, 2026; Forum received payment on January 14, 2026.

 

On January 22, 2026, Sav.com, LLC - 18 confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <transamerrica.com> domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC - 18 and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sav.com, LLC - 18 has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sav.com, LLC - 18 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 January 26, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 17, 2026, 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@transamerrica.com. Also on January 26, 2026, 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 February 18, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Transamerica Corporation, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and a holding company for a group of subsidiaries engaged in the sale of life insurance, investment planning, and retirement services. The Transamerica Companies and their predecessors have used the name "Transamerica" since 1929 as a trade name and service mark. Since December 5, 1994, Transamerica has owned and used the domain transamerica.com to offer its financial services products.

 

The Complaint alleges that the Disputed Domain Name redirects users to download software that appears to contain malware. Complainant alleges that its customers and other Internet users may reasonably, but mistakenly, believe that they need to download this software in order to reach Complainant's website, and that Respondent's website ("Respondent's Website") is sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant.  Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name <transamerrica.com> thus creates a likelihood of confusion among users by creating the perception and impression that Complainant owns, sponsors, or endorses Respondent's Website, which Complainant does not.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1.       Complainant owns registered rights in the TRANSAMERICA mark ("Mark"), including U.S. trademark registration no. 1129244, registered on January 15, 1980. Complainant registered its <transamerica.com> domain on December 5, 1994.

2.       Respondent, Zhang Wei, registered the Disputed Domain Name <transamerrica.com> on October 4, 2025, using a proxy or privacy service to conceal his identity, a factor which this Panel may consider as evidencing bad faith registration and use.

3.       Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, for the purpose of intentionally attempting to divert, 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, and endorsement of the services offered through links on Respondent's Website.

 

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 <transamerrica.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's TRANSAMERICA Mark as it incorporates the Mark in its entirety, albeit with the intentional addition of the letter 'r'. See 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); Victoria's Secret et al v. Brown, FA 96561 (Forum Mar. 19, 2001) (finding the domain names are <urn2victoriassecret.com> and <urn2victoriassecrets.com> were confusingly similar to Complainant's VICTORIA'S SECRET mark). Furthermore, the panel finds that the addition of the '.com' suffix does not overcome the confusing similarity of the Disputed Domain Name with Complainant's Mark, as the addition of a generic top-level domain is a mere administrative requirement.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent's intentional misspelling of TRANSAMERICA to "transamerrica.com", by adding the letter "r", 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, is a fraudulent practice known as "typosquatting". The UDRP Policy was designed to rectify this practice. See Diners Club International Ltd. v. Domain Admin******It's all in the name******, FA 0156839, p. 3 (Forum June 23, 2003). The Panel agrees and finds that the first element at Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i) is satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges it is unaware of any evidence that Respondent has ever commonly been known by the name "Transamerrica" (or variations thereof) prior to Respondent's registration of the Disputed Domain Name and that Respondent, thus, lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, citing the panel decisions in AAA Employment, Inc., v. Ahearn and Assoc., FA 0520670, p. 6 (Forum Sept. 6, 2005) ('[i]t must be shown by evidence that Respondent was commonly known by the domain name at the time of registration of the domain name.'), and Yoga Works, Inc. v. Jenna Arpita d/b/a Shanti Yoga Works, FA0155461, p. 4 (Forum June 17, 2003) (finding that UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) was not satisfied where there was no evidence that respondent was commonly known by the <shantiyogaworks.com> domain name prior to its registration of the disputed domain name).

 

Complainant also alleges that Respondent's Website requires users to download what appears to be malware-containing software. Using a confusingly similar domain name to divert users to such content does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Complainant submitted evidence of an Apple security warning about potential malware, though without detailed explanation.

 

The Respondent has not sought to refute or deny Complainant's allegations and evidence under circumstances that appear a textbook example of typosquatting. Accordingly, the Panel finds by the greater weight of the evidence that Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The second element at Policy Paragraph 4(a)(ii) is satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant's evidence demonstrates that Respondent registered and is using the <transamerrica.com> Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, for the purpose of intentionally attempting to divert, 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, and endorsement of the services offered through links on Respondent's Website. See UDRP Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and ¶ 4(b)(iv). 

 

The Panel finds no legitimate purpose for Respondent's registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name beyond typosquatting and free riding on Complainant's goodwill. Accordingly, the third element under Policy Paragraph 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.

 

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

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: February 19, 2026