national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Auto Glass Express Inc c/o Robert Gaultney

Claim Number: FA0910001291035

 

PARTIES

Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Debra J. Monke, of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA.  Respondent is Auto Glass Express Inc c/o Robert Gaultney (“Respondent”), Maryland, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <statefarmautoglassrepair.com> and <statefarmautoglassrepair.mobi>, registered with Godaddy.com, 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.

 

Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret) as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 23, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 26, 2009.

 

On October 26, 2009, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <statefarmautoglassrepair.com> and <statefarmautoglassrepair.mobi> domain names are registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Godaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On October 29, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 18, 2009 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@statefarmautoglassrepair.com and postermaster@statefarmautoglassrepair.mobi by e-mail.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On November 23, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret) as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <statefarmautoglassrepair.com> and <statefarmautoglassrepair.mobi> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarmautoglassrepair.com> and <statefarmautoglassrepair.mobi> domain names.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <statefarmautoglassrepair.com> and <statefarmautoglassrepair.mobi> domain names in bad faith.

 

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

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, first began using the STATE FARM mark in 1930 and registered the STATE FARM mark (Reg. No. 1,979,585) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on June 11, 1996 in connection with their insurance underwriting and service business.

 

Respondent registered the <statefarmautoglassrepair.com> and <statefarmautoglassrepair.mobi> domain names on July 30 and 31, 2009, respectively.  The disputed domain names are being used to display links to third-party websites, such as “Auto Glass Near You,” “Auto Insurance Online,” and “New York Auto Glass,” some of which directly compete with Complainant’s insurance business.

 

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 draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory.  See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of its STATE FARM mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,979,585 issued June 11, 1996) is sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. r9.net, FA 445594 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding the complainant’s numerous registrations for its HONEYWELL mark throughout the world sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the mark under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Expedia, Inc. v. Emmerson, FA 873346 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 9, 2007) (“Complainant’s trademark registrations with the USPTO adequately demonstrate its rights in the [EXPEDIA] mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).

 

The <statefarmautoglassrepair.com> and <statefarmautoglassrepair.mobi> domain names contain Complainant’s STATE FARM mark in its entirety, only omitting the space between the words of the mark.  The disputed domain names then add the generic words “auto glass repair” and the generic top-level domains “.com” and “.mobi.”  The Panel finds that none of these changes are significant and that the <statefarmautoglassrepair.com> and <statefarmautoglassrepair.mobi> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i); see also Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i); see also Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. Sadler, FA 250236 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2004) (finding the addition of generic terms to Complainant’s HARRY POTTER mark in the respondent’s <shop4harrypotter.com> and <shopforharrypotter.com> domain names failed to alleviate the confusing similarity between the mark and the domain names).

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first establish a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  If the Panel finds that Complainant’s allegations establish such a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does indeed have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to the guidelines in Policy ¶ 4(c).  The Panel finds that Complainant’s allegations are sufficient to establish a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  Since no response was submitted in this case, the Panel may presume that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  However, the Panel will still examine the record in consideration of the factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(c).  See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). 

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no license or agreement with Complainant authorizing Respondent to use its marks, and the WHOIS information identifies the registrant as “Auto Glass Express Inc c/o Robert Gaultney.”  The Panel finds no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by any of the disputed domain names.  Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by either of the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Tercent Inc. v. Lee 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 Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’  Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”).

 

Complainant contends that the websites resolving from the disputed domain names display links to third-party websites.  Some of the these links direct Internet users to Complainant’s direct competitors and some are unrelated to Complainant.  The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through-fees for these links.  The Panel finds this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a portal with hyperlinks to various third-party websites, some of which may be in direct competition with a complainant, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute either 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 Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent is using the <statefarmautoglassrepair.com> and <statefarmautoglassrepair.mobi> domain names, registered on July 30 and 31, 2009, respectively, to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s websites that feature links to third-party sites, some of which compete with Complainant’s business.  The Panel finds that such use of the disputed domain names constitutes disruption and is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s business); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”).

 

The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to third-party websites.  Because Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark, Internet users accessing Respondent’s disputed domain names may become confused as to Complainant’s endorsement of the resulting website.  Thus, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes).

 

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

 

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 <statefarmautoglassrepair.com> and <statefarmautoglassrepair.mobi> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret), Panelist

Dated:  December 8, 2009

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum