ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION CNO Financial Group, Inc. v. Sharetha Owens, CNOINCC Case No. D2021-3659 1. The Parties Complainant is CNO Financial Group, Inc., United States of America ("United States" or "U.S."), represented by Ice Miller LLP, United States. Respondent is Sharetha Owens, CNOINCC, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on November 3, 2021. On November 3, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 4, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on November 15, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 21, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules"). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 24, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 14, 2021. On November 28, 2021, and March 18 and 20, and April 25, 2022, the Center received email communications from Respondent. On December 17, 2021, the Center suspended the proceedings at Complainant's request for purposes of settlement discussions concerning the disputed domain name. After multiple further extensions of the page 2 suspension period at Complainant's request, the Center reinstituted the proceedings on June 3, 2022. The Center appointed Brian J. Winterfeldt as the sole panelist in this matter on June 10, 2022. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Complainant is a financial services holding company based in Carmel, Indiana. Originally incorporated in 1979, Complainant began operations in 1982 and became a public company named Conseco, Inc. in 1985. In 2010, Complainant rebranded as CNO Financial Group, Inc. Complainant and its subsidiaries serve the insurance needs of more than 4 million customers. Complainant had an income of 301.8 million USD in 2020, and employs 5,000 exclusive agents working in its branches, and 4,000 independent partner agents. Complainant owns valid and subsisting registrations for the CNO and CNO FINANCIAL GROUP trademarks (the "CNO Marks") covering insurance and financial services, including United States Registration Number 3,894,349 for CNO (registered on December 21, 2010), United States Registration Number 4,109,436 for CNO (registered March 6, 2012) and United States Registration Number 3,932,012 for CNO FINANCIAL GROUP (registered on March 15, 2011). Complainant owns and operates its primary website offering insurance and financial services at the domain name , which Complainant registered in July 2008. The disputed domain name, , was registered on October 24, 2021. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked page offering links to various financial services websites. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CNO Marks in which Complainant has rights because the disputed domain name merely adds an additional letter "c", which is a sign Respondent intended to typosquat. The disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to Complainant's primary domain name, . Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. According to Complainant, Respondent was a former employee of Complainant, terminated from her employment at Complainant's business on June 30, 2020, and had no authorization to use Complainant's trademarks, including in domain names. Respondent's use of "CNOINCC" as the "Organization" in the registration information for the disputed domain name does not show Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, as "CNOINCC" is not a legitimate entity and a search for the entity redirects to search results for Complainant. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name for a parked page evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant argues Respondent's typosquatting is sufficient to establish registration and bad faith, and the disputed domain name's confusing similarity to Complainant's CNO Marks and primary domain name demonstrate knowledge of and familiarity with Complainant's brand and business. Complainant argues Respondent registered the disputed domain name for illegitimate purposes, most likely to launch a phishing attack or commit fraud, and registration of a trademark-related domain name by a former employee constituted bad faith registration and use. Further to a November 28, 2021 email from Respondent requesting cancellation of the disputed domain page 3 name, Complainant requested suspension of the proceedings to explore settlement. Subsequently Complainant emailed the Center to request extensions of the suspension period a number of times. Though Respondent sent a signed Standard Settlement Form to the Center on March 20, 2022, Complainant refused to sign. Complainant alleged on April 22, 2022 that Respondent had not met her obligations under the settlement agreement and asked the Center to reinstate the proceeding. B. Respondent Respondent did not contest Complainant's allegations, but instead requested cancellation of the disputed domain name in an email on November 28, 2021. Following suspension of the proceeding, Respondent sent a signed Standard Settlement Form to the Center on March 20, 2022. After Complainant alleged in an email dated April 22, 2022 that Respondent had not met her obligations under the settlement agreement, Respondent stated in an email dated April 25, 2022 that she had followed instructions to proceed with such obligations and did not understand why Complainant stated otherwise. Respondent also alleged Complainant was making falsified statements and asked Complainant to explain why. 6. Discussion and Findings As an initial matter, the Panel notes that this proceeding was previously suspended in 2021 after Respondent requested cancellation of the disputed domain name and Complainant requested suspension of the proceedings to explore settlement. After multiple communications between the Center and the Parties, the Parties did not reach a settlement over the disputed domain name. The Panel is not privy to the settlement agreement between the Parties Complainant referenced, and the communications between the Parties during the suspension of the proceeding and leading up to the reinstitution of the proceeding do not affect the merits of this case, except insofar as they evidence Respondent did not contest Complainant's allegations, and Respondent instead ultimately consented to and tried to effectuate the transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant. The consent of a respondent to a complainant's requested remedy can be grounds for a panel to immediately order a decision in a complainant's favor without a traditional 4(a) analysis. Past UDRP panelists have ordered the complainant's requested remedy solely on the basis of such consent. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 4.10. However, the Panel has decided to proceed with a decision on the merits of a traditional paragraph 4(a) analysis as Complainant did not expressly accepted Respondent's consent and in fact declined it on the basis that Respondent purportedly did not meet her settlement obligations, and it is apparent from the record that Respondent targeted Complainant, its CNO Marks, and the domain name Complainant uses for its primary website. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.10 (noting that scenarios where a panel may still find it appropriate to proceed to a substantive decision on the merits include the scenario where the complainant has not agreed to accept respondent's consent to the remedy sought by the complainant); see, e.g., Facebook Inc. v. Domain Administrator, Domainmarket.com, WIPO Case No. D2020-1199 (noting that the respondent consented to the transfer of the disputed domain names, but respondent's request for USD 1,750 from the complainant tipped the balance in favor of the panel deciding the case on the merits). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar A complainant's ownership of a nationally or internationally registered trademark constitutes prima facie evidence that the complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Here, Complainant has provided evidence that it has rights in the CNO Marks through its U.S. trademark registrations. The remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's CNO Marks (typically disregarding the Top-Level Domain page 4 ("TLD") in which the domain name is registered). It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement and that the threshold test for confusing similarity involves a "reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name". WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. This test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Id. Here, the disputed domain name fully incorporates the CNO trademark and is confusingly similar to the CNO FINANCIAL GROUP trademark. The addition of "incc", an obvious typographical variation of "inc" with an extra "c" at the end, and the TLD ".com" do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's CNO Marks. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in establishing its trademark rights and showing that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CNO Marks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, Complainant must make at least a prima facie showing that Respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once a complainant makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained their burden under the second element of the UDRP. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Respondent 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. As the disputed domain name resolved to a parked page that offered links to services that compete with Complainant's services, Respondent also does not appear to be using the disputed domain name in connection with any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, and Respondent's use of the disputed domain name also cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services. Prior UDRP panels have found that using a domain name that is confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark to sell competing goods and services is not a legitimate business use of the domain name. See Segway Inc. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Arthur Andreasyan, NIM, WIPO Case No. D2016-0725. Moreover, the disputed domain name incorporates the CNO trademark in its entirety, along with a typographical variation of "inc" that renders the disputed domain name near-identical to Complainant's domain name which Complainant uses to host its primary website. This evidences Respondent was attempting to use the disputed domain name to impersonate or suggest sponsorship or endorsement by Complainant, which cannot be considered a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 2.5.1 and 2.13.1. Complainant has provided evidence supporting its prima facie claim that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not contested Complainant's allegations. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration and use on the part of a domain name registrant, namely: "i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is page 5 the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location." Respondent was clearly aware of and targeted Complainant and its CNO Marks. Complainant's U.S. trademark registrations for the CNO Marks predate Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name by approximately 11 years, Complainant's registration of its domain name predates Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name by approximately 13 years, and the disputed domain name is near-identical to Complainant's domain name, with Respondent merely having added the letter "c" after "inc". See, e.g., CNO Financial Group, Inc. v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1248260556 / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2021-0351 (ordering transfer of ); CNO Financial Group, Inc. v. Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2017-1544 (ordering transfer of and ). Respondent's conduct is consistent with Policy paragraph 4(b)(iii), in that it appears Respondent was acting in opposition to Complainant for some means of commercial gain. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.3. Respondent has not evidenced, and the Panel cannot conceive of any legitimate use to which Respondent could put the clearly typosquatted disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name could have been used by Respondent to impersonate Complainant. Respondent's conduct is also consistent with Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) because of Respondent's use of the disputed domain name, which is based on a slight misspelling combined with a well-established trademark, for a parked page offering links to competing services. See WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 3.1.4 and 3.2.1. Respondent's unauthorized use of "CNOINCC" in the organization field of the WhoIs details used in the registration of the disputed domain name further supports the conclusion that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.6 ("Panels additionally view the provision of false contact information (or an additional privacy or proxy service) underlying a privacy or proxy service as an indication of bad faith."). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and Complainant succeeds under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. /Brian J. Winterfeldt/ Brian J. Winterfeldt Sole Panelist Date: June 24, 2022
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy