DECISION

 

Securian Financial Group, Inc. v. johnny leed / johnnyleed

Claim Number: FA2003001889588

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Securian Financial Group, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, United States. Respondent is johnny leed / johnnyleed ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <securianretirementcenter.co>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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 the Forum electronically on March 24, 2020; the Forum received payment on March 24, 2020.

 

On March 24, 2020, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <securianretirementcenter.co> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 March 25, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 14, 2020 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@securianretirementcenter.co. Also on March 25, 2020, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On April 17, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the 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 large financial services company that provides insurance, investment, and retirement products and services to more than 15 million people, and has $64 billion of assets under management. Complainant has used the SECURIAN mark in connection with its products and services since at least as early as 2001, along with the domain names <securian.com> and <securianretirementcenter.com>. Complainant owns multiple United States trademark registrations for SECURIAN and variations thereof.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name <securianretirementcenter.co> through a privacy registration service in January 2020. The domain name is being used to display a page consisting of pay-per-click links to competing financial and retirement service providers. Complainant states that it has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its SECURIAN marks, and that Respondent is not commonly known by the mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <securianretirementcenter.co> is confusingly similar to its SECURIAN 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 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 Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <securianretirementcenter.co> incorporates Complainant's registered SECURIAN trademark, adding the generic terms "retirement" and "center" and appending the ".co" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. JH Kang, FA 1886146 (Forum Mar. 25, 2020) (finding <statefarmcenter.co> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); Securian Financial Group, Inc. v. Lisa Katz / Domain Protection LLC, FA 1811134 (Forum Nov. 26, 2018) (finding <securianretirmentcenter.com> confusingly similar to SECURIAN); Securian Financial Group, Inc. v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1762306 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018) (finding <securianretiermentcenter.com> confusingly similar to SECURIAN). 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, and its sole apparent use has been to display pay-per-click advertisements to competitors of Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. JH Kang, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Securian Financial Group, Inc. v. Lisa Katz / Domain Protection LLC, supra (same); Securian Financial Group, Inc. v. Zhichao Yang, supra (same); Texas Health Resources v. Johnny Leed / JOHNNYLEED, FA 1772529 (Forum Mar. 28, 2018) (same).

 

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 registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's well-known mark, and substituting the ".co" top-level domain for the ".com" in a domain name used by Complainant; and is using it to create and profit from confusion with Complainant by displaying pay-per-click links to Complainant's competitors. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. JH Kang, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); Securian Financial Group, Inc. v. Lisa Katz / Domain Protection LLC, supra (same); Securian Financial Group, Inc. v. Zhichao Yang, supra (same); Texas Health Resources v. Johnny Leed / JOHNNYLEED, supra (same). 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 <securianretirementcenter.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: April 17, 2020

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page