DECISION

 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Ajay Jangid

Claim Number: FA2107001954448

 

PARTIES

Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("Complainant"), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Ajay Jangid ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <statefarmestimate.com>, registered with FastDomain Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 9, 2021; the Forum received payment on July 9, 2021.

 

On July 9, 2021, FastDomain Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <statefarmestimate.com> domain name is registered with FastDomain Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. FastDomain Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the FastDomain 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 July 13, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 2, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@statefarmestimate.com. Also on July 13, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 August 4, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a nationally known company engaged in the insurance and financial services industries. Complainant began using the STATE FARM mark in 1930, and owns longstanding trademark registrations for STATE FARM and related marks in the United States and other jurisdictions.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name in January 2021. Complainant contacted Respondent shortly after the domain name was registered, asking Respondent to provide documentation of Respondent's authority to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's domain name or to cancel the registration or transfer the domain name to Complainant. Respondent stated in reply that he intended to use the domain name for a website containing information about and positive reviews of Complainant's insurance products. Complainant followed up with additional demands that Respondent cancel or transfer the domain name. The domain name still does not resolve; an error page appears when one attempts to access it in a web browser. Complainant states that Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant's name or mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <statefarmestimate.com> is confusingly similar to its STATE FARM mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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."

 

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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <statefarmestimate.com> incorporates Complainant's registered STATE FARM trademark, omitting the space and adding the generic term "estimate" (which relates to Complainant's business) and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Tulip Trading Co., FA 1769529 (Forum Feb. 23, 2018) (finding <statefarmresources.com> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Domain Admin / Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org, FA 1579014 (Forum Oct. 8, 2014) (finding <statefarmadjuster.com> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); Homer TLC, Inc. v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1556058 (Forum May 29, 2014) (finding <homedepotestimater.com> confusingly similar to HOME DEPOT). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and there is no indication that Respondent has used the domain name or made demonstrable preparations to do so. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Alex Palazzo, FA 1756037 (Forum Dec. 1, 2017) (finding lack of rights or interests where Respondent had not made any active use of domain name); see also State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Domain Admin / Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org, supra (finding lack of rights or interests where domain name resolved to page containing nameserver configuration instructions, apparently maintained by domain name registrar).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent registered a domain name combining Complainant's well-known mark with a term associated with Complainant's services, and does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name. The Panel is skeptical of Respondent's unsubstantiated statements regarding his intentions for the domain name, and infers that Respondent registered and is maintaining the domain name with the intent to create and exploit confusion with Complainant and its mark for Respondent's commercial gain. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: August 9, 2021

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page