State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. THIS DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE AT HTTPS://WWW.NETWORKSOLUTIONS.COM / New Ventures Services, Corp
Claim Number: FA2008001907647
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois. Respondent is THIS DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE AT HTTPS://WWW.NETWORKSOLUTIONS.COM / New Ventures Services, Corp (“Respondent”), Pennsylvania.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <nystatefarm.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with Register.com, 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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 7, 2020; the Forum received payment on August 7, 2020.
On August 11, 2020, Register.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <nystatefarm.com> domain name is registered with Register.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com, Inc. 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 August 14, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 3, 2020 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@nystatefarm.com. Also on August 14, 2020, 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 8, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 is a provider of insurance and financial services in North America and throughout the world. Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”). (e.g. USPTO Reg. 5,271,354, registered August 22, 2017; CIPO Reg. TMA 405034, registered Mar. 15, 2002). Respondent’s <nystatefarm.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the geographic acronym “ny” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <nystatefarm.org> domain name, as it is not commonly known by the Domain Name and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its STATE FARM mark. Respondent does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent attempts to divert internet users for commercial gain to the Domain Name’s inactive website.
Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to divert internet users for commercial gain by attracting users seeking Complaiant’s services the Domain Name’s unused resolving website. Respondent also knew or should have known of Complainant’s rights in the STATE FARM mark when it registered the Domain Name. Respondent also failed to respond to Complainant’s numerous cease-and-desist letters, and still passively holds the Domain Name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the STATE FARM mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the 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 asserts rights in the STATE FARM mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., 5,271,354, registered August 22, 2017). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is generally sufficient to establish rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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).”).
The Panel finds that the <nystatefarm.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and simply adds the “ny” geographic acronym along with the “.com” gTLD. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a generic geographic word or acronym along with the “.com” gTLD is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Dollar Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Jewald & Assocs. Ltd., FA 96676 (Forum Apr. 6, 2001) (“The addition of ‘US’ or ‘USA’ does not alter the underlying mark held by the complainant.”); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the STATE FARM mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “THIS DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE AT HTTPS://WWW.NETWORKSOLUTIONS.COM / New Ventures Services, Corp” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Name presently resolves to an inactive page which by itself does not show a bona fide offering of goods and services. Rather it appears obvious from the name of the Respondent that the Domain Name was registered for the purpose of selling it to a third party, presumably for a sum in excess of any out-of-pocket costs that could have been incurred by Respondent. Absent any explanation by Respondent for its conduct, such conduct is not by itself a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See AOL Inc. v. YourJungle Privacy Protection Service aka Whois Agent, FA1312001533324 (Forum Jan. 17, 2014) (“Respondent has offered the <aoljobsweek.com> domain name for sale to the general public, which demonstrates that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”);
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, which was July 16, 2019, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s STATE FARM mark. Complainant has used the STATE FARM mark since 1930 and has developed a significant reputation in the mark, including from its website at www.statefarm.com. Furthermore Respondent has not provided an explanation why it registered a domain name that consists of the STATE FARM mark and the geographic abbreviation for New York (and offered it for sale to the public) other than to take advantage of Complainant’s reputation in the STATE FARM mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent has, without alternative explanation (or other active use), registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to the STATE FARM mark and offered it for sale to the public. An offer to sell a disputed domain name may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See loanDepot.com, LLC v. sm goo, FA 1786848 (Forum June 12, 2018) (finding that where a respondent’s only employment of a substantially identical domain name is to attempt to sell the name, there exist sufficient grounds to find the respondent registered and used the name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)). In the present case, given the nature of the Domain Name, the manner in which it has been used (not at all), and the lack of alternative explanation provided by Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <nystatefarm.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: September 9, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page