DECISION

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Domain Admin

Claim Number:  FA0408000314137

PARTIES

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 Domain Admin (“Respondent”), 536 Leavenworth Street, San Francisco, CA 94109.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <statefarmcarinsurance.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, Inc.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically August 17, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint August 17, 2004.

On August 17, 2004, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <statefarmcarinsurance.com> is registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, Inc. verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, Inc. registration agreement and thereby has 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 25, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 14, 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@statefarmcarinsurance.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 20, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson 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.

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

1. The domain name Respondent registered, <statefarmcarinsurance.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM INSURANCE mark.

2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <statefarmcarinsurance.com> domain name.

3. Respondent registered and used the <statefarmcarinsurance.com> domain name in bad faith.

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

Complainant is a nationally known company that has been doing business under the name “State Farm” since 1930.  Complainant engages in business in both the insurance and the financial services industry.  Business in automobile insurance has made Complainant the leading competitor among insurers of car insurance since 1942.  Complainant registered the STATE FARM INSURANCE mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) September 11, 1979 (Reg. No 1,125,010).

Respondent registered the <statefarmcarinsurance.com> domain name January 28, 2004.  The domain name redirects Internet users to the <insurecom.com> domain name, which provides information about insurance services for a variety of companies. 

DISCUSSION

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 will draw such inferences as the Panel considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires Complainant to 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 to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Identical to and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant established with extrinsic proof in this proceeding that it has rights in the STATE FARM INSURANCE mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.  See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.  Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption).

The domain name Respondent registered, <statefarmcarinsurance.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM INSURANCE mark because the domain name fully incorporates the mark and merely adds the descriptive word “car” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”  The Panel finds that the addition of the word “car” and the gTLD “.com” is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where Respondent’s domain name combines Complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that the <hoylecasino.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a generic word describing the type of business in which Complainant is engaged, does not take the disputed domain name out of the realm of confusing similarity); see also Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant).

Furthermore, omission of spaces between the words in Complainant’s STATE FARM INSURANCE mark is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark.  See Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are impermissible in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”); see also Wembley Nat’l Stadium Ltd. v. Thomson, D2000-1233 (WIPO Nov. 16, 2000) (finding that the domain name <wembleystadium.net> is identical to the WEMBLEY STADIUM mark).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Rights to or Legitimate Interests

Due to Respondent’s failure to contest the allegations of the Complaint, the Panel presumes that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <statefarmcarinsurance.com> domain name.  See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a Response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names).

Respondent failed to submit a Response; therefore, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the Complaint as true.  See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertion in this regard.”); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the Panel to draw adverse inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complaint).

The Panel finds that Respondent receives pay-per-click fees for referring Internet users to insurance websites via the <statefarmcarinsurance.com> domain name.  Thus, Respondent uses a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark for commercial gain.  Respondent’s use of the misleading domain name for commercial gain does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Black & Decker Corp. v. Clinical Evaluations, FA 112629 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2002) (holding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to commercial websites, unrelated to Complainant and presumably with the purpose of earning a commission or pay-per-click referral fee, did not evidence rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also MSNBC Cable, LLC v. Tysys.com, D2000-1204 (WIPO Dec. 8, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the famous MSNBC mark where Respondent attempted to profit using Complainant’s mark by redirecting Internet traffic to its own website). 

Furthermore, nothing in the record establishes that Respondent is commonly known by the <statefarmcarinsurance.com> domain name.  Moreover, Respondent is not licensed or authorized to register or use domain names that incorporate Complainant’s mark.  Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the domain name containing Complainant’s protected mark in bad faith.  The domain name Respondent registered, <statefarmcarinsurance.com>, redirects Internet users to a commercial website that provides information about insurance services provided by a variety of companies.  Thus, Respondent’s domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, diverts Complainant’s potential customers to Complainant’s competitors.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s business); see also Franpin SA v. Paint Tools S.L., D2000-0052 (WIPO May 25, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent, a company financially linked to Complainant’s main competitor, registered and used the domain name in question to disrupt Complainant’s business); see also Puckett v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that Respondent has diverted business from Complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).

Furthermore, Respondent’s <statefarmcarinsurance.com> domain name resolves to a website that provides links to insurance websites.  The Panel finds that Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name for commercial gain and therefore concludes that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that, if Respondent profits from its diversionary use of Complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be concluded that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent directed Internet users seeking Complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <statefarmcarinsurance.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist

Dated: October 4, 2004

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/1301.html