Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company v. YourNew.com
Claim
Number: FA0408000311046
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company (“Complainant”), represented by Janice K. Forrest, One State
Farm Plaza A-3, Bloomington, IL 61710.
Respondent is YourNew.com (“Respondent”),
2420 SW 17th St., Topeka, KS 66604.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <statefarmkansas.com>, registered with Tucows,
Inc.
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.
Louis
E. Condon as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on August 11, 2004; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on August 11, 2004.
On
August 11, 2004, Tucows, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <statefarmkansas.com> is registered with Tucows, Inc. and
that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows, Inc. has
verified that Respondent
is bound by the Tucows, Inc. registration agreement
and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties
in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the
"Policy").
On
August 18, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
September 7, 2004 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint,
was transmitted to Respondent
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@statefarmkansas.com by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification,
the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
September 15, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed
Louis E. Condon 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."
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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <statefarmkansas.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <statefarmkansas.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <statefarmkansas.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, is a nationally known company
that has been doing business under the
STATE FARM mark since 1930. Complainant is engaged in the business of
insurance and financial services.
Complainant holds trademark registrations with the United States Patent
and Trademark Office for the STATE FARM mark (Reg. No. 1,979,585,
issued June
11, 1996, Reg. No. 2,319,867, issued February 15, 2000, Reg. No. 2,198,246,
issued October 20, 1998, Reg. No. 2,174,935,
issued July 21, 1998, Reg. No.
1,579,406, issued January 23, 1990, Reg. No. 2,296,986, issued November 30,
1999, Reg. No. 1,220,284,
issued December 14, 1982, Reg. No. 1,125,010, issued
September 11, 1979, Reg. No. 645,890, issued May 21, 1957 and Reg. No. 1,087,834,
issued March 21, 1978).
Respondent
registered the <statefarmkansas.com> domain name on September 19,
2003, and is using it to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s website,
providing information about
website design and Internet services.
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."
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.
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.
The domain name
registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM
mark because the domain name incorporates
Complainant’s mark in its entirety
and deviates from it only by adding the geographic term, “Kansas.” The mere
addition of a geographic
word to a registered mark does not negate the
confusing similarity of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walmarket Canada, D2000-0150 (WIPO May 2, 2000)
(finding that the domain name, <walmartcanada.com> is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s famous
mark); see also JVC Americas Corp. v. Macafee, CPR007 (CPR Nov. 10, 2000) (finding
that the domain name registered by Respondent, <jvc-america.com>, is
substantially similar
to, and nearly identical to Complainant's JVC mark).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Moreover,
Respondent offered no evidence and no proof in the record suggests that
Respondent is commonly known by the <statefarmkansas.com> domain
name. Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in
the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp.,
D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark
and never applied for a
license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name); see
also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone
Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or
legitimate interests because Respondent is not commonly known by
the disputed
domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair
use).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent
intentionally registered a domain name that contains in its entirety
Complainant’s well-known STATE FARM mark and did so
for Respondent’s commercial
gain. Respondent’s domain name diverts Internet users who seek Complainant’s
STATE FARM mark to Respondent’s
commercial website through the use of a domain
name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s practice
of diversion,
motivated by commercial gain, constitutes bad faith registration
and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bank of America Corp. v. Out
Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (stating that
“[s]ince the disputed domain names contain entire versions of Complainant’s
marks and are used for something completely unrelated to their descriptive
quality, a consumer searching for Complainant would become
confused as to
Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting search engine website” in holding
that the domain names were registered
and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA
123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that Respondent registered and
used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because
Respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet
users to its commercial website);
see also eBay, Inc v. Progressive Life Awareness Network, D2001-0068 (WIPO
Mar. 16, 2001) (finding bad faith where Respondent is taking advantage of the
recognition that eBay has created
for its mark and therefore profiting by
diverting users seeking the eBay website to Respondent’s site).
The Panel finds that
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Complainant
having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the
Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <statefarmkansas.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated:
September 29, 2004
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/1146.html