Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Hartford, CT, USA ("Complainant") represented by Donna A. Tobin, Cooper & Dunham LLP. The Respondent is Webtv.com, New York, NY, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "hartfordnetinsurance.com" registered with Network Solutions.

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as the panelist in this proceeding.

Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on October 17, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 17, 2000.

On October 18, 2000, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "hartfordnetinsurance.com" is registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has ve rified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 5.0 registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On October 19, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 8, 2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Resp ondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@hartfordnetinsurance.com by e-mail.

On November 14, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name and that the domain name was registered in bad f aith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent contends that as the Complainant is not involved in any form of the netinsurance business, which is described as a business insuring websites from possible malicious attacks. It is also their contention that to date the Complainant’s bu siness interests do not include the netinsurance business; therefore, the domain name should not be considered as confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, that the Respondent does have a legitimate interest in the domain name, and that they did not register the domain name in bad faith.

The Respondent states that at the time of the registration they anticipated the need of websites to insure their data or properties against virus attacks, but had difficulty finding financing or interest from the internet communities.

The Complainant is known as a provider of insurance services and dating back at least as early as 1971, Complainant adopted and began using the Mark "The Hartford" in connection with its services. Beginning in 1990, Complainant also began using "H artford" in connection with said services. The Complainant spends a substantial sum of money and has invested large amounts of time advertising and promoting its services connected with said mark. As a result of Complainant’s extensive use and ownership of its marks, consumers have come to associate the Complainant’s trademark with the Complainant.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the 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.

The domain name that is the subject of this Complaint incorporates in its entirely the Complainant’s registered mark along with the words "net" and "insurance." As the Complainant is known through its family of marks as a provider of insurance serv ices connected with its famous mark, the domain name "hartfordnetinsurance.com" is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark as the mark is incorporated in the domain name in its entirety. Also, as the Complainant is the provider of insurance service s and information on their services may be obtained through the internet, it is more likely that this would cause confusion among the consumer public. See Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Smithberger and QUIXTAR-IBO, D2000-0138 (WIPO Apr. 19, 2000) (finding that because the domain name <quixtar-sign-up.com> incorporates in its entirety the Complainant’s distinctive mark, <QUIXTAR>, the domain name is confusingly similar)

The Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, is not using the domain name for any non-commercial purpose, and has never been commonly known by the domain name. The only business name listed for the Respondent in the WHOIS database of the registrar is "WebTV" with what appears to be a residential address. See Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Hanna Law Office, D2000-0669 (WIPO Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the Respondent has no rights in the domain name because (1) the Respondent did not use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, (2) the Respondent was not commonly kno wn by the mark, and (3) the Respondent was not using the domain name in connection with a noncommercial purpose).

The Respondent has a history of registering domain names associated with famous marks for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring them to a Complainant or a competitor, including other insurance and financial services based busine sses. The Respondent’s administrative contact offered to sell the domain name to the Complainant and directed Complainant’s counsel to Great Domains, where they were offering the name for sale. See The Step2 Co. v. Softastic.com Corp., D2000-0393 (WIPO June 26, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s attempt to sell the domain name in question on <greatdomains.com>, a domain name auction site, constitutes bad faith).

As all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a) have been satisfied, it is the decision of this panelist that the requested relief be granted. Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name "hartfor dnetinsurance.com" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.