Transamerica Corporation v. Appia Anigbogu
Claim Number: FA1407001570214
Complainant is Transamerica Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Bruce A. McDonald of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Washington, D.C., USA. Respondent is Appia Anigbogu (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <globaltransamerica.com>, registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC.
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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 17, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on July 17, 2014.
On July 17, 2014, GODADDY.COM, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <globaltransamerica.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 July 18, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 7, 2014 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@globaltransamerica.com. Also on July 18, 2014, 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 14, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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
1. Complainant has rights in the TRANSAMERICA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
a. Complainant is a global insurance and financial services organization. Complainant has made extensive use of the TRANSAMERICA name in U.S. commerce since 1929, and internationally since the 1960s.
b. Complainant owns numerous registrations for the TRANSAMERICA mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 0718,358 registered July 11, 1961) as well as with countries internationally. See Complainant’s Exhibits B–D.
c. Respondent’s <globaltransamerica.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRANSAMERICA mark, in that it differs only by the addition of the descriptive term “global,” that
increases the likelihood of confusion.
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <globaltransamerica.com> domain name.
a. Complainant has not authorized or approved Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name. Additionally, the WHOIS information lists “Appia Anigbogu” as registrant.
b. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a website displaying pay-per-click advertising.
3. Respondent registered and is using the <globaltransamerica.com> domain name in bad faith.
a. In 2008, more than 40 years after Complainant’s first acquired trademark registrations for the TRANSAMERICA mark, Respondent registered the <transamericaglobal.com> domain name.
b. Respondent uses the disputed domain name for the purpose of generating revenue using pay-per-click advertising.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Transamerica Corporation of Cedar Rapids, IA, USA is the owner of multiple domestic and international registrations for the mark TRANSAMERICA and related marks used in connection with its provision of global insurance and financial services. Complainant has used the mark continuously in the above manner since at least as early as 1961. Amongst Complainant’s family of TRANSAMERCA marks is the mark “Transamerica Global Macro”.
Respondent is Appia Anigbogu of Dallas, TX, USA. Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as Scottsdale, AZ, USA. Respondent registered the <globaltransamerica.com> domain name on or about July 2, 2013.
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Complainant contends it is a global insurance and financial services organization. Complainant explains that it has made extensive use of the TRANSAMERICA name in U.S. commerce since 1929, and internationally since the 1960s. Complainant further provides evidence of its registrations for the TRANSAMERICA mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 0718,358 registered July 11, 1961) as well as with countries internationally. Prior panels have conclusively established that providing evidence of a registration for a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. For example, the panel in AOL LLC v. Interrante, FA 681239 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2006) found that, where the complainant had submitted evidence of its registration with the USPTO, “such evidence establishes complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel here finds that Complainant has rights in the TRANSAMERICA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant also contends that Respondent’s <globaltransamerica.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRANSAMERICA mark, in that it differs only by the addition of the descriptive term “global,” which increases the likelihood of confusion. The Panel notes that Respondent also adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Prior panel decisions hold that the addition of a descriptive word and a gTLD does not differentiate the disputed domain name from the registered mark. See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that “[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word . . . nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied). The Panel here finds that Respondent’s <globaltransamerica.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRANSAMERICA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Complainant has proven this element.
The Panel recognizes that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name). The Complainant has met this burden.
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <globaltransamerica.com> domain name. Complainant contends that it has not authorized or approved Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name. Additionally, the WHOIS information lists “Appia Anigbogu” as registrant. Given Respondent’s failure to provide evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <globaltransamerica.com> domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Educ. Broad. Corp. v. DomainWorks Inc., FA 882172 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 18, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <thirteen.com> domain name based on all evidence in the record, and the respondent did not counter this argument in its response).
Complainant further contends that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a website displaying pay-per-click advertising. The Panel notes that Respondent’s <globaltransamerica.com> domain name resolves to a website displaying links such as, “Have an Invention Idea?” “How to Patent Your Idea,” “Best Dividend Stocks,” and “Listen to Radio.” The panel in WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) concluded that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark, websites where the respondent presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the Policy. The Panel here finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website featuring third-party links from which Respondent presumably commercially profits, does not establish rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Because the Respondent has not provided a response to this action the Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain.
The Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the <globaltransamerica.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant asserts that Respondent uses the disputed domain name for the purpose of generating revenue using pay-per-click advertising. The Panel again notes that prior panels have found that using a disputed domain name to resolve to a website displaying a variety of third-party commercial links, indicates bad faith use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Ass’n of Junior Leagues Int’l Inc. v. This Domain Name My Be For Sale, FA 857581 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2007) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to maintain a pay-per-click site displaying links unrelated to the complainant and to generate click-through revenue suggested bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). The Panel here finds that Respondent registered and is using the <globaltransamerica.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
The Complainant has proven this element.
Because the Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <globaltransamerica.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: August 28, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page