DECISION

 

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. Tanae Belton

Claim Number: FA2602002204521

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Progressive Casualty Insurance Company ("Complainant"), represented by Christina J. Moser of Baker & Hostetler LLP, Ohio, USA. Respondent is Tanae Belton ("Respondent"), New York, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <progressive-claims.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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 10, 2026; Forum received payment on February 10, 2026.

 

On February 10, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <progressive-claims.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 February 16, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 9, 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@progressive-claims.com. Also on February 16, 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 March 10, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 Progressive Casualty Insurance Company is the owner of the well-known and famous trademark PROGRESSIVE, which it uses directly and through affiliated companies in connection with, among other services, property and casualty insurance services, life insurance services, insurance underwriting for auto, liability, finance, mobile home, motorcycle, RV, and others, adjusting and claims processes, insurance premium quoting, and the provision of insurance-related information and services over the Internet and mobile applications.

 

Complainant owns a family of PROGRESSIVE trademarks, including common-law rights and registrations.

 

The at-issue domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant registered the PROGRESSIVE marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Such registrations and use establish Complainant's rights in the marks. The at-issue domain name consists of nothing more than the PROGRESSIVE mark followed by the generic wording "claims," as well as the top level domain ("gTLD") suffix , which does nothing to distinguish the at-issue domain name from the Complainant's marks. In addition, the webpage at the at-issue domain name contains Complainant's PROGRESSIVE mark. Furthermore, the fact that the domain name uses the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") suffix does not create a meaningful distinction from Complainant's marks.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent originally registered the at-issue domain name in a manner concealing her identity. There is no basis to find that Respondent is commonly known by the at-issue at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) given Complainant's widely known rights in the PROGRESSIVE mark and logo. Respondent has no connection to Complainant, and Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or endorsed Respondent's use of its marks in the at-issue domain name or the resulting webpage. Moreover, Complainant is unaware of any legitimate companies in the financial or insurance industry doing business under any similar name. To the contrary, Respondent trades on the goodwill of Complainant's trademarks, purposely creating consumer confusion in a manner that allows Respondent to prey on individuals when they mistakenly believe the at-issue domain name is associated with Complainant. Respondent attempts to deceive users into believing there is an association or affiliation between the at-issue domain name and website with Complainant by using Complainant's famous name at the top of the webpage, purportedly in connection with the same services as those offered by Complainant. Using an at-issue domain name or resolving website to confuse users about the association between the domain name and a complainant or to pass itself off as a complainant in order to sell unauthorized goods is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Even if Respondent was legitimately offering financial or insurance services under the at-issue domain name, this would still not evidence rights or legitimate interests in the domain. There is no evidence that Respondent (i) is using or is planning to use the at-issue domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, (ii) is known by "Progressive" or any related name, or (iii) is making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the at-issue domain name. Accordingly, Respondent cannot establish any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and cannot prevail under ICANN Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)-(iii).

 

The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent had both constructive and actual notice of the Complainant's marks. Beyond constructive notice, Respondent had actual notice of Complainant's rights in PROGRESSIVE given the longstanding and well-known use of Complainant's marks in connection with insurance services, and still Respondent used the PROGRESSIVE mark on her <progressive-claims.com> webpage. Respondent's unauthorized use of Complainant's marks for a website that purports to provide the same or similar services to Complainant is an attempt by Respondent to impersonate Complainant, likely to take Complainant's customers' information and money. Notably, Complainant famously provides insurance services, and Respondent's website uses Complainant's name and holds Respondent out as financial claims company. Such use of Complainant's marks is an attempt to attract, for financial gain, consumers to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or her services. This is evidence of Respondent's bad faith. Bad faith is further evidenced by Respondent having affirmatively concealed her identity by means of a proxy service which supports the inference that Respondent has knowingly engaged in the registration and use of the at-issue domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the PROGRESSIVE trademark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the PROGRESSIVE trademark.

 

Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name to address an interactive website displaying Complainant's trademark and purporting to be a claims service so that it might collect private information from website visitors or otherwise trade on Complainant's mark.

 

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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant's USPTO trademark registrations for the PROGRESSIVE mark is conclusive evidence of Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) ("Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.")

 

Respondent's <progressive-claims.com> domain name contains Complainant's PROGRESSIVE trademark, followed by an irrelevant hyphen and the suggestive term "claims," with all followed by the ".com" top-level. The differences between Complainant's trademark and Respondent's domain name are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <progressive-claims.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's PROGRESSIVE trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023) ("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).

 

The WHOIS information for <progressive-claims.com> leads to identifying the domain name's registrant as "Tanae Belton" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by <progressive-claims.com> or any variation thereof. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known as <progressive-claims.com> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 1919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) ("Here, the WHOIS information lists "er nong wu" as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).").

 

Respondent uses its <progressive-claims.com> domain name to address a website displaying Complainant's PROGRESSIVE trademark and purportedly offering "claims" services thus making the website look as if it's sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant. Respondent's use of <progressive-claims.com> in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] 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).").

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in <progressive-claims.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

Respondent's confusingly similar <progressive-claims.com> domain name addresses a website displaying Complainant's PROGRESSIVE mark where Respondent purports to offer claims services. Respondent thereby feigns an association with Complainant. Such use of the domain name is indicative of Respondent's bad faith. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Domain ID Shield Service / Domain ID Shield Service CO., Limited, FA 1841700 (Forum June 21, 2019) (finding that respondent was using "chevronplacement.com" in bad faith in order to "disrupt the business of Complainant by causing internet users to think an affiliation exists between Respondent's domain names and Complainant"); see also, Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.").

 

Respondent's <progressive-claims.com> website appears to be interactive as it contains online mechanisms for contacting the website's holder with questions and transmitting personal private data. Site visitors may thus be tricked into giving up proprietary information meant for Complainant to Respondent that Respondent can then use in a variety of schemes to defraud site visitors. Respondent's use of the <progressive-claims.com> domain name to facilitate phishing is disruptive to Complainant's business and designed to deceptively attract internet users so that Respondent may capitalize on the confusion it created between its <progressive-claims.com> domain name and referenced website, and Complainant's PROGRESSIVE trademark. Respondent's intent to use the domain name to defraud third parties further shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name. See McKinsey Holdings, Inc. v. Privacy Protection, report abuse to / Registrar: DELTA-X Ltd., FA 1580883 (Forum Oct. 25, 2014) (holding that the respondent had engaged in phishing, which is further evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), when the respondent used the disputed domain name in an attempt to obtain Internet users' personal information).

 

Moreover, Respondent registered <progressive-claims.com> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in PROGRESSIVE. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's rights is evident from the fame of Complainant's trademark and from Respondent's inclusion of the suggestive term "claims" in the at-issue domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's PROGRESSIVE trademark indicates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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 <progressive-claims.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: March 10, 2026