State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. C. Dameron Scott / Farmers Insurance Group
Claim Number: FA1611001701135
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Sherri Dunbar of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is C. Dameron Scott / Farmers Insurance Group (“Respondent”), Colorado, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <howtobeastatefarmagent.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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 2, 2016; the Forum received payment on November 2, 2016.
On November 3, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <howtobeastatefarmagent.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 7, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 28, 2016 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@howtobeastatefarmagent.com. Also on November 7, 2016, 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 1, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port 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, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, is a nationally known company that engages in business under the STATE FARM mark in both the insurance and financial services industries. Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,979,585, registered June 11, 1996). See Compl., at Attached Ex. 1. Respondent’s <howtobeastatefarmagent.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the STATE FARM mark in a domain name. The domain name resolves to a parked web page with click-through links to various insurance companies/products, including some in direct competition with Complainant. Additionally, Respondent is an agent for a direct competitor of Complainant. See Compl., at Attached Ex. 3. Such use does not represent any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith under the Policy. While Respondent, an agent of a direct competitor, has caused hyperlinks of competitors to resolve through <howtobeastatefarmagent.com>, bad faith disruption is present under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Further, actual and/or constructive knowledge is present, which is an additional indication of Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The disputed domain name <howtobeastatefarmagent.com> was registered on December 15, 2015.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
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 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 (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.”).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark STATE FARM. Complainant has adequately plead its interests in and to this trademark. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by merely adding the generic words “how to become a” prior to Complainant’s trademark. This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel further finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name. Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information lists “Dameron Scott” of “Farmers Insurance Group,” which Complainant alleges is a direct competitor of Complainant. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name apparently resolves to a parked web page with click-through links to various insurance companies/products, including some in direct competition with Complainant. See Compl., at Attached Ex. 3 (links include: “Car insurance - $19 Month,” “AARP 50+ Life Insurance,” and “Auto Insurance Quotes”). Competing hyperlinks have not been considered to amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (FORUM June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business).
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent’s inclusion of competing hyperlinks does not represent any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii), and, therefore, has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name.
The Panel further finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. Respondent is apparently an agent of a direct competitor, and has caused hyperlinks of competitors to resolve through <howtobeastatefarmagent.com>, which constitutes bad faith disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Where competing hyperlinks resolve on the website of a disputed domain name, panels have found bad faith disruption. See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.com Legal, FA1506001622088 (FORUM July 10, 2015) (“The use of a domain name’s resolving website to host links to competitors of a complainant shows intent to disrupt that complainant’s business, thereby showing bad faith in use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). Complainant’s Attached Exhibit 3 displays hyperlinks such as “Car insurance - $19 Month,” “AARP 50+ Life Insurance,” and “Auto Insurance Quotes.” Compl., at Attached Ex. 3. Accordingly, the Panel finds that such hyperlinks compete with Complainant and its insurance offerings and therefore Respondent has registered and used <howtobeastatefarmagent.com> in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
The Panel further finds that Respondent registered the domain name with actual knowledge of the STATE FARM mark and Complainant’s rights. Panels look to a totality of circumstances in making findings of actual knowledge, while disregarding contentions of constructive knowledge. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (FORUM Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”). Here, Respondent has incorporated Complainant’s mark entirely, and numerous panels have agreed that the STATE FARM mark is famous. See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. wwWHYyy.com, FA 1063456 (FORUM Sept. 25, 2007) (finding that “[t]here can be no doubt that STATE FARM is a very famous mark, and Complainant has clearly established rights in the [mark]” pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon its numerous federal trademarks and use in commerce since 1930). Additionally, Respondent is an agent for a competitor of Complainant. Given the totality of the circumstances, the Panel, therefore, finds that Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s rights in and to the trademark STATE FARM.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <howtobeastatefarmagent.com> domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: December 1, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page