State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. John Austin Tatum / TATUM INSURANCE
Claim Number: FA1511001647380
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Sherri Dunbar of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, United States. Respondent is John Austin Tatum / TATUM INSURANCE (“Respondent”), Texas, United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <benjaminyoungstatefarm.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 17, 2015; the Forum received payment on November 17, 2015.
On November 18, 2015, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <benjaminyoungstatefarm.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 November 19, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 9, 2015 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@benjaminyoungstatefarm.com. Also on November 19, 2015, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on December 2, 2015.
On December 7, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant’s Contentions
1. Complainant is a nationally known company that has been doing business under the name “State Farm” since 1930. Complainant engages in business in both the insurance and the financial services industries. Complainant also has established a nationally recognized presence on television and other media. Complainant has registered the STATE FARM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,979,585, registered June 11, 1996), which demonstrates its rights in its mark. The Panel is directed to Attachment 1 for copies of Complainant’s USPTO registrations. The <benjaminyoungstatefarm.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates Complainant’s mark and merely adds the generic term “Benjamin Young,” the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” and eliminates the spacing between the words of Complainant’s mark.
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. First, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or any variant of Complainant’s mark. Second, Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s mark. Finally, Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services through the disputed domain name or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent’s disputed domain name currently resolves to a blank webpage which states “Website Coming Soon.” See Compl., at Attachment 3.
3. Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. First, Respondent registered the disputed domain name in an attempt to attract and confuse Internet users for commercial profit. Second, Respondent has made no active use of the disputed domain name. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s mark.
B. Respondent’s Contentions
1. Respondent denies any allegations that he used or engaged in use of the disputed domain name. Respondent is willing to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant.
Respondent consents to transfer the domain names to Complainant. As a result, the Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain names but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, the Panel may forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <benjaminyoungstatefarm.com> domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
Given Respondent’s Consent to Transfer, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <benjaminyoungstatefarm.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: December 18, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page