State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico
Claim Number: FA1909001860461
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarmfireclaimsstatefarm.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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 3, 2019; the Forum received payment on September 3, 2019.
On September 4, 2019, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <statefarmfireclaimsstatefarm.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 September 4, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 24, 2019 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@statefarmfireclaimsstatefarm.com. Also on September 4, 2019, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 26, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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" 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 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
Complainant operates in the insurance and financial services industries. Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,211,626, registered Sep. 18, 2012). Respondent’s <statefarmfireclaimsstatefarm.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s STATE FARM mark twice, and merely adds the generic or descriptive terms “fire” and “claims” as well as the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarmfireclaimsstatefarm.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use Complainant’s STATE FARM mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent registered the disputed domain name to create the impression of association with Complainant and trade off the good will associated with the STATE FARM mark.
Respondent registered and uses the <statefarmfireclaimsstatefarm.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by creating initial interest confusion at the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage. Respondent also had actual knowledge of Complainant’s State Farm mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
State Farm is a nationally known company that has been doing business under the name “State Farm” since 1930. State Farm engages in business in both the insurance and the financial services industry. State Farm has rights in the STATE FARM mark based upon its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,211,626, registered Sep. 18, 2012). Respondent’s <statefarmfireclaimsstatefarm.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark.
Respondent registered the <statefarmfireclaimsstatefarm.com> domain name on April 3, 2019.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent registered the disputed domain name to create the impression of association with Complainant; however, the domain name initially resolved to a blocked web page with a dangerous page message and now resolves to a page advertising a tax tracking platform.
Respondent registered and uses the <statefarmfireclaimsstatefarm.com> domain name in bad faith.
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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon registration with the USPTO. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <statefarmfireclaimsstatefarm.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s STATE FARM mark twice, and merely adds the generic or descriptive terms “fire” and “claims” as well as the “.com” gTLD.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarmfireclaimsstatefarm.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized by Complainant to use the STATE FARM mark. The WHOIS information lists the Registrant of the domain name as “Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico.” Therefore, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name).
Respondent is not using the <statefarmfireclaimsstatefarm.com> domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The domain name initially resolved to a blocked web page with a dangerous page message and now resolves to a page advertising a tax tracking platform.
Respondent registered and uses the <statefarmfireclaimsstatefarm.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by creating initial interest confusion at the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage. A respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to divert Internet users searching for a complainant’s website can constitute bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STATE FARM mark prior to registration of the <statefarmfireclaimsstatefarm.com> domain name. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (actual knowledge of the complainant’s mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <statefarmfireclaimsstatefarm.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: October 10, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page