DECISION

 

CNA Financial Corporation v. Web Master / UK Domain Developers, LTD

Claim Number: FA2606002225403

 

PARTIES

Complainant is CNA Financial Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Tiffany D. Gehrke of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Web Master / UK Domain Developers, LTD ("Respondent"), Great Britain.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <cnainsurancecompany.com>, registered with DNC Holdings, 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.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 4, 2026; Forum received payment on June 4, 2026.

 

On June 8, 2026, DNC Holdings, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cnainsurancecompany.com> domain name is registered with DNC Holdings, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DNC Holdings, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the DNC Holdings, 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 June 16, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 6, 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@cnainsurancecompany.com. Also on June 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 July 7, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Jeffrey J. Neuman 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 one of the largest commercial property and casualty insurance groups in the United States. Complainant provides a wide range of standard and specialized insurance products and services for businesses and professionals in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Complainant states that it has used the CNA mark in connection with insurance services since at least December 1964 and that it owns multiple trademark registrations for CNA-formative marks in the United States and elsewhere, including United States Registration Nos. 802,010, 1,043,744, and 5,026,836.

Complainant asserts rights in the CNA mark through its longstanding use and trademark registrations. Complainant further states that it owns and uses the domain name <cna.com>, which was created in 1994, and that Complainant prominently uses the CNA mark on its website in connection with insurance services.

Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name <cnainsurancecompany.com> on November 13, 2005, decades after Complainant first began using the CNA mark and after Complainant registered <cna.com>. Complainant states that no business relationship exists between Complainant and Respondent and that Respondent has never been authorized to use Complainant's CNA mark.

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CNA mark because it incorporates the CNA mark in its entirety and merely adds the descriptive terms "insurance" and "company," together with the ".com" generic top-level domain. Complainant contends that the added terms increase rather than diminish confusion because Complainant is known for insurance services.

Complainant further asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. According to Complainant, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, is not affiliated with or authorized by Complainant, and has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant states that Respondent previously passively held the disputed domain name and that archived webpages displayed error pages. Complainant further submitted timestamped evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolved to a page containing insurance-related content under the heading "Why Choose CNAIN Insurance Company?" and an indication that the domain name was for sale.

Complainant also contends that Respondent has configured an MX record for the disputed domain name, creating a substantial risk that the domain name may be used for email-related deception, phishing, or other fraudulent communications. Complainant argues that this risk is especially acute because the disputed domain name combines Complainant's CNA mark with the terms "insurance" and "company," thereby creating an email domain that would appear to Internet users to be associated with Complainant's insurance business. Complainant additionally submitted evidence that the disputed domain name is offered for sale through a third-party sales page, with a minimum offer of $1,000.

Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant asserts that Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's CNA mark together with terms directly describing Complainant's insurance business, used the domain name to display insurance-related content, configured email capabilities, and offered the domain name for sale. Complainant contends that Respondent's conduct demonstrates an intent to trade on Complainant's goodwill, create confusion with Complainant, disrupt Complainant's business, and attract Internet users for commercial gain.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.  Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 13, 2005.

FINDINGS

1.       Complainant has established rights in the CNA mark through longstanding use and trademark registrations, including United States Registration Nos. 802010, 1043744, and 5026836.

2.       The disputed domain name <cnainsurancecompany.com> incorporates Complainant's CNA mark in its entirety and adds the descriptive terms "insurance" and "company" together with the ".com" generic top-level domain.

3.       Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, has not been authorized to use Complainant's CNA mark, and there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

4.       The disputed domain name previously resolved to inactive or error pages. Complainant's timestamped evidence shows that it later resolved to a webpage displaying insurance-related content under the heading "Why Choose CNAIN Insurance Company?" and offering the domain name for sale. Although the Panel's review showed only a current offer-for-sale page, the Panel accepts Complainant's unrebutted timestamped evidence as true.

5.       The disputed domain name has an associated MX record, with mail.computer.com listed as the mail exchanger.

6.       The totality of the circumstances, including the MX record, supports an inference of bad faith registration and use. The MX record is one factor among several and raises a concern that the disputed domain name may be used for email-related deception. 

 

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 3.1 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

Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) requires Complainant to establish rights in a trademark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.

Complainant has demonstrated rights in the CNA mark through its registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, including Registration Nos. 802010, 1043744, and 5026836. Registration of a mark with a national trademark authority is sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018); see also Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017).

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's CNA mark in its entirety. The addition of the descriptive terms "insurance" and "company" does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.1 § 1.8. Indeed, the added terms directly relate to Complainant's insurance business and therefore may increase the likelihood of confusion. See Media West-DMR et al. v. Phil Nagy, D2005-1322 (WIPO Feb. 6, 2006) (finding confusion heightened where the generic word added by respondent is descriptive of complainant's goods or services marketed in relation to the mark). The addition of the ".com" generic top-level domain is also disregarded for purposes of the first element. See WIPO Overview 3.1 § 1.11.1; see also Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name <cnainsurancecompany.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's CNA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a showing is made, the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp., FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2006); Neal & Massey Holdings Ltd. v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014).

Complainant asserts that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, has not been licensed or otherwise authorized to use the CNA mark, and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has failed to submit a Response and therefore has failed to rebut Complainant's prima facie case.

Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) provides that a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests by showing that it has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Registrar identifies Respondent as Web Master / UK Domain Developers, LTD. Nothing in the record indicates that Respondent has ever been known by "CNA," "CNA Insurance Company," or <cnainsurancecompany.com>. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018).

The Panel further finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The record reflects that the disputed domain name previously resolved to inactive or error pages. Complainant submitted timestamped evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolved to a webpage displaying insurance-related content under the heading "Why Choose CNAIN Insurance Company?" The page described insurance services such as auto insurance, home insurance, health insurance, business insurance, and life insurance. As of the date of the Panel's review, the disputed domain name no longer displayed that insurance-related content and instead resolved to a page indicating that the disputed domain name was for sale. Respondent, however, has not appeared, has not disputed Complainant's evidence, and has not offered any explanation for its use of the disputed domain name. Given the date-and-time stamp appearing on Complainant's submitted webpage evidence, and in the absence of any contrary evidence, the Panel accepts Complainant's submitted evidence as true. Such use trades on the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's CNA mark and insurance business and is not bona fide or legitimate under the Policy. See Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum Feb. 3, 2016) (finding that use of a confusingly similar domain name to promote competing services was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA 1613867 (Forum June 2, 2015).

The Panel also notes that the disputed domain name has been offered for sale and that the record includes evidence of a third-party sales page inviting offers for the disputed domain name. Offering a confusingly similar domain name for sale does not confer rights or legitimate interests. See 3M Company v. Kabir S Rawat, FA 1725052 (Forum May 9, 2017).

In addition, the DNS evidence shows that an MX record has been configured for the disputed domain name, identifying mail.computer.com as the mail exchanger. Although the record does not include an example of an actual fraudulent email sent from the disputed domain name, the MX configuration indicates that email routing has been enabled for the disputed domain name. Given that the disputed domain name reads as "CNA insurance company," that configuration is one factor among several that raises a concern that the domain name may be used for email-related deception. The MX record alone does not establish that Respondent has used the domain name for such a purpose.  Panels have found that use of confusingly similar domain names for email impersonation, phishing, or business email compromise is incompatible with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018); Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016).

Further, Respondent's prior passive holding of the disputed domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests. Panels have found that failure to make active use of a domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004); Agilent Tech, Inc. v. Billy Milholland, FA 1517433 (Forum Oct. 11, 2013).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

The Policy sets forth non-exhaustive circumstances that evidence bad faith registration and use, including where a respondent registers or acquires a domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant or a competitor of the complainant for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs, Policy ¶ 4(b)(i); where a respondent registers the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii); and where a respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement, Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

First, the record supports a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). The disputed domain name wholly incorporates Complainant's CNA mark with terms directly descriptive of Complainant's insurance business, and the record shows that the disputed domain name is offered for sale through a page inviting users to make an offer, with a minimum offer of $1,000. Offering a confusingly similar domain name for sale may constitute evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Robert Half International Inc. v. DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE, CHECK AFTERNIC.COM Domain Admin / Domain Registries Foundation, FA 1769400 (Forum Mar. 8, 2018).

Second, Respondent's use of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's CNA mark in its entirety and adds the terms "insurance" and "company." Complainant submitted timestamped evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolved to a website containing insurance-related content under the heading "Why Choose CNAIN Insurance Company?" and referring to insurance products and services. As of the date of the Panel's review, that insurance-related content was no longer displayed, and the disputed domain name instead resolved to a page indicating that the disputed domain name was for sale. Respondent has not appeared to dispute Complainant's evidence, and the submitted webpage evidence bears a date-and-time stamp. Accordingly, the Panel accepts Complainant's submitted evidence as true. On the totality of the record, including the submitted insurance-related webpage, the current offer-for-sale page, the composition of the disputed domain name, Respondent's earlier passive holding of the disputed domain name, and Respondent's failure to rebut Complainant's evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's CNA mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or other online location. See DatingDirect.com Limited v. Wayne Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (finding bad faith where a respondent used a confusingly similar domain name to operate a competing commercial website); see also Printingforless.com, Inc. v. Reno Printing for Less, FA 1336600 (Forum Sept. 7, 2010).

Third, the Panel finds that Respondent's use disrupts Complainant's business. Complainant's timestamped evidence shows that Respondent used the disputed domain name to present insurance-related content that appears calculated to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's insurance services. Although that insurance-related content was no longer displayed as of the date of the Panel's review, Respondent has not disputed Complainant's evidence, and the Panel accepts that evidence as true for the reasons stated above. Such use supports a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See DatingDirect.com Limited v. Wayne Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005).

The Panel also finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its CNA mark when registering and using the disputed domain name. Complainant's CNA mark had been used for decades before Respondent registered the disputed domain name, including in connection with insurance services since at least 1964. The disputed domain name combines the CNA mark with the terms "insurance" and "company," and Complainant's timestamped evidence shows that Respondent's website displayed insurance-related content. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds it implausible that Respondent selected and used the disputed domain name without awareness of Complainant and its rights. Actual knowledge is further evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014); see also Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015).

The presence of an MX record associated with the disputed domain name is one factor among several that raises a concern that the disputed domain name may be used for email-related deception, particularly given the confusing similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark and business. The DNS evidence identifies mail.computer.com as the exchange host for the disputed domain name's MX record. The domain name is not merely a typographical variant of Complainant's mark; it combines Complainant's CNA mark with the very terms "insurance" and "company," thereby creating an email domain that would appear to consumers, policyholders, brokers, vendors, or other third parties to be associated with Complainant. Although there is no evidence in the record of an actual fraudulent email sent from the disputed domain name, the MX record alone does not establish that Respondent used the domain name for email-related deception. Considered with the domain name's composition, Respondent's earlier passive holding, the later insurance-related website content, and the offer-for-sale page, however, the MX record is probative in the totality of the circumstances supporting the finding of bad faith. Panels have consistently found that use of a domain name to pass off as a complainant through email, phishing activity, or business email compromise is incompatible with good faith and supports findings under the Policy. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018); Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding that use of disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails supported bad faith); Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (finding bad faith where respondent used a disputed domain name to impersonate complainant's CEO).

Finally, Respondent's previous passive holding of the disputed domain name, considered together with Complainant's longstanding rights, the incorporation of the CNA mark with terms descriptive of Complainant's business, Respondent's later use for insurance-related content, and Respondent's offer to sell the domain name, further supports a finding of bad faith. Passive holding may support a finding of bad faith when the circumstances show targeting of a complainant's mark. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to 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 <cnainsurancecompany.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Panelist

Dated:  July 21, 2026