DECISION

 

First American Financial Corporation v. AIS / Stephanie Keating

Claim Number: FA2606002228663

 

PARTIES

Complainant is First American Financial Corporation ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Rosaleen Chou of Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, United States. Respondent is AIS / Stephanie Keating ("Respondent"), United States or Finland.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <firstamericanhousing.com>, registered with NameSilo, 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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 22, 2026; Forum received payment on June 22, 2026.

 

On June 23, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <firstamericanhousing.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. (The contact information for Respondent provided by NameSilo, LLC includes a physical address in the United States, but with "FI" (Finland) as the country, and what appears to be a Belgian telephone number.) NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 1, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 21, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@firstamericanhousing.com. Also on July 1, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 22, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 publicly traded U.S. company that provides real estate, financial, and title services, with over $7 billion in annual revenue and a global workforce of almost 20,000 employees. Complainant states that the majority of its business is centered on housing-related services. Complainant adopted the name and mark FIRST AMERICAN at least as early as 1959. Complainant owns longstanding United States trademark registrations for FIRST AMERICAN in standard character form and a related design mark, along with similar registrations in other jurisdictions.

 

The disputed domain name <firstamericanhousing.com> was registered in April 2026. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. Complainant states that the domain name is or has been redirected to Complainant's website. Complainant states further that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <firstamericanhousing.com> is confusingly similar to its FIRST AMERICAN mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (version 3.1, 2026), available at https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; 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 <firstamericanhousing.com> incorporates Complainant's registered FIRST AMERICAN trademark, omitting the space and adding the generic term "housing" and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Serhant Media Group LLC v. The Serhant, FA 2061101 (Forum Oct. 4, 2023) (finding <serhanthousing.com> confusingly similar to SERHANT.); First American Corp. v. PLUTO DOMAIN SERVICES PRIVATE LTD., FA 1236783 (Forum Jan. 21, 2009) (finding <firstamerican.com> identical to FIRST AMERICAN). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name (apart from redirecting it to Complainant's website), nor to have engaged in preparations for such use, suggesting that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See, e.g., Leidos, Inc. v. David Perez, FA 2109823 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent used a privacy registration service and what appears to the Panel to be internally inconsistent and likely fictitious underlying registration information to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark and a generic term related to Complainant's business. The only indication that Respondent has used the domain name is Complainant's statement that the domain name is or has been redirected to Complainant's website. Respondent has not come forward to offer any explanation for the selection or intended use of the domain name. Under the circumstances, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that the domain name was registered and is being used to create and exploit confusion with Complainant's coined mark for commercial gain, perhaps in connection with a phishing scheme. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g.,

Leidos, Inc. v. David Perez, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <firstamericanhousing.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: July 22, 2026