Security Group, Inc. d/b/a Security Finance v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.
Claim Number: FA2108001958733
Complainant is Security Group, Inc. d/b/a Security Finance (“Complainant”), represented by Jason A. Pittman of Dority & Manning, P.A., South Carolina, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp. (“Respondent”), The Bahamas.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <securityfinance2021.com>, registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 9, 2021; the Forum received payment on August 9, 2021.
On August 11, 2021, Internet Domain Service BS Corp confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <securityfinance2021.com> domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet Domain Service BS Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet Domain Service BS Corp 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 August 16, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 7, 2021 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@securityfinance2021.com. Also on August 16, 2021, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 10, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant and its operating subsidiaries have provided financial services to customers for more than 60 years. Complainant has rights in the SECURITY FINANCE mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 6,011,189, registered March 17, 2020). Respondent’s <securityfinance2021.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SECURITY FINANCE mark as it contains the entire mark and merely adds the generic numbers “2021” and the top-level domain “.com.”
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <securityfinance2021.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the SECURITY FINANCE mark. Additionally, Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as Respondent previously used it in connection with competitive hyperlinks and now fails to make active use of it.
Respondent registered and uses the <securityfinance2021.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent used the disputed domain name to create a false sense of affiliation with Complainant while displaying competitive hyperlinks. Respondent also failed to respond to Complainant’s cease and desist letter and fails to make active use of the disputed domain name. Finally, Respondent had constructive and actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SECURITY FINANCE mark prior to registering the disputed domain name, evidenced by Complainant’s trademark registrations and Respondent’s use of competitive hyperlinks.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant and its operating subsidiaries have provided financial services to customers for more than 60 years. Complainant has rights in the SECURITY FINANCE mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 6,011,189, registered March 17, 2020). Respondent’s <securityfinance2021.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SECURITY FINANCE mark.
Respondent registered the <securityfinance2021.com> domain name on June 10, 2021.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <securityfinance2021.com> domain name. Respondent previously used the domain in connection with competitive hyperlinks and now fails to make active use of the domain.
Respondent registered and uses the <securityfinance2021.com> domain name in bad faith.
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 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”).
Complainant has rights in the SECURITY FINANCE mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”).
Respondent’s <securityfinance2021.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SECURITY FINANCE mark as it contains the entire mark and merely adds the generic numbers “2021” and the top-level domain “.com.”
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <securityfinance2021.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the SECURITY FINANCE mark. When a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tenza Trading Ltd. v. WhoisProtectService.net / PROTECTSERVICE, LTD., FA1506001624077 (Forum July 31, 2015) (“The WHOIS information lists ‘WhoisProtectService.net’ as the registrant of record for the disputed domain names. Accordingly, in the absence of a Response, there is no evidence to indicate that Respondent might be known by any of the domain names.”). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sept. 4, 2018) (concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where “the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and no information in the record shows that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any way.”). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Domain Admin,” and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the SECURITY FINANCE mark. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent fails to use the <securityfinance2021.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent previously used it in connection with competitive hyperlinks. Using a disputed domain name in connection with competitive hyperlinks is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015)
Also, Respondent fails to use the <securityfinance2021.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent currently fails to actively use it. An inactive website may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).See Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018).
Respondent registered and uses the <securityfinance2021.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent used it to create a false sense of affiliation with Complainant while displaying competitive hyperlinks. Using a disputed domain name to display competitive hyperlinks can demonstrate bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (4)(b)(iv). See block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) (“Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another.”).
Respondent registered and uses the <securityfinance2021.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent fails to make active use of the domain. Failing to make active use of a disputed domain name can demonstrate bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dr. Keenan Cofield, FA 1799574 (Forum Sept. 10, 2018) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where “the domain name initially resolved to a web page with a “website coming soon” message, and now resolves to an error page with no content.”).
Respondent registered and uses the <securityfinance2021.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s cease and desist letter. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), failing to respond to a cease and desist letter can demonstrate bad faith registration and use. See Seiko Epson Corporation v. Ashish Sen, FA 1702054 (Forum Dec. 12, 2016) (finding that failing to respond to a cease-and-desist demand letter constitutes bad faith).
Finally, Respondent registered the <securityfinance2021.com> domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).as Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights to the SECURITY FINANCE mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name. See Norgren GmbH v. Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft, FA1501001599884 (Forum Feb. 25, 2014) (holding that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights in the mark, thus demonstrating bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to purposely host links related to the complainant’s field of operation).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <securityfinance2021.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: September 27, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page