Government Employees Insurance Company v. Milen Radumilo
Claim Number: FA2111001971820
Complainant is Government Employees Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Deborah J Peckham of Burns & Levinson LLP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is Milen Radumilo (“Respondent”), Romania.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <geico-insurance.us>, registered with CommuniGal Communication Ltd..
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 3, 2021; the Forum received payment on November 3, 2021.
On November 6, 2021, CommuniGal Communication Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <geico-insurance.us> domain name is registered with CommuniGal Communication Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. CommuniGal Communication Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the CommuniGal Communication Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On November 8, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 29, 2021 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@geico-insurance.us. Also on November 8, 2021, 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 December 6, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD 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
1. Respondent’s <geico-insurance.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GEICO mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <geico-insurance.us> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <geico-insurance.us> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant is a well-known insurance company, and holds registrations with multiple trademark agencies for its GEICO mark, e.g. United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Reg. 763,274, registered Jan. 14, 1964, and World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Reg. 1,178,718, registered Sep. 4, 2013).
Respondent registered the <geico-insurance.us> domain name was on July 15, 2021, and uses it to offer unrelated computer software 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."
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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the GEICO mark through its registrations with the USPTO and WIPO. See Astute, Inc. v. Raviprasath C / Astute Solution Pvt Ltd, FA 1546283 (Forum Apr. 9, 2014) (finding that registrations with two major trademark agencies is evidence enough of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rights in the ASTUTE SOLUTIONS mark.).
Respondent’s <geico-insurance.us> domain name uses Complainant’s GEICO mark, and simply adds the descriptive word “insurance” pertaining to Complainant’s business, along with the “.us” ccTLD and a hyphen. These changes are insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) (“Respondent’s <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ANT FINANCIAL mark. It incorporates the mark entirely. It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms “investor relations,” and the “.com” gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Allied Bldg. Prods. Corp. v. Henkel, FA 827652 (Forum Dec. 11, 2006) (holding that “it is well established that the top-level domain, here “.us,” is insignificant with regard to UDRP analysis” when determining confusing similarity). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <geico-insurance.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GEICO mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the <geico-insurance.us> domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its GEICO mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name identifies Respondent as “Milen Radumilo.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain name where the WHOIS information listed Respondent as “Operi Manaha,” and nothing else in the record suggested Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX mark.)
Complainant also argues that Respondent does not use the <geico-insurance.us> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent simply diverts users to its own website. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(ii) and (iv), using a disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a website where Respondent hosts a variety of unrelated content is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Complainant provides screenshots of the website at the disputed domain name, showing links that offer various computer software tools. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(ii) or (iv).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the <geico-insurance.us> domain name for bad faith attraction for commercial gain. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), bad faith is found where a Respondent uses a disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a website where Respondent offers unrelated goods or services for its commercial benefit. See Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if the respondent profits from its diversionary use of the complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails to contest the complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). The Panel thus finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant claims that Respondent registered the <geico-insurance.us> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the GEICO mark. The Panel agrees, noting that the fame of the GEICO mark, and finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) (“Complainant contends that Respondent’s knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field. The Panel here finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <geico-insurance.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: December 7, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page