State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. John Reddoch / Reddoch Media Group
Claim Number: FA1611001701162
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 REDDOCH / REDDOCH MEDIA GROUP ("Respondent"), Louisiana, United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarmlafayettela.com>, registered with eNom, Inc.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 2, 2016; the Forum received payment on November 2, 2016.
On November 8, 2016, eNom, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <statefarmlafayettela.com> domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, 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 November 8, 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 email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@statefarmlafayettela.com. Also on November 8, 2016, 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 November 30, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Also on November 30, 2016, the Forum received email correspondence from Respondent, in which he asserted a right to retain the disputed domain name.
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 is a nationally known company engaged in the insurance and financial services industries. Complainant began using the STATE FARM mark in 1930. Complainant's marks registered in the United States include STATE FARM (registered in 1996), STATE FARM INSURANCE (registered in 1979), and others.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <statefarmlafayettela.com> in 2015 through a privacy service, concealing his identity. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's STATE FARM and related marks. Complainant contends further that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In support thereof, Complainant states that it has no association with Respondent, that it has not authorized Respondent to use its mark, and that Respondent has never been known by the domain name. The disputed domain name formerly resolved to a web page comprised of pay-per-click links to various insurance companies and products, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant, and now resolves to a blank page.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. Respondent stated in email correspondence that he registered the domain name for a friend who is a State Farm agent.
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 has been used in bad faith.
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 (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.").
The disputed domain name <statefarmlafayettela.com> combines Complainant's registered STATE FARM mark with a geographic identifier, omitting the spaces and adding the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Mark Griswold, FA 1647410 (Forum Dec. 18, 2015) (finding <dfwstatefarm.com> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Travis Mager, FA 1627267 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding <washingtonstatefarm.com> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Brad Zude, FA 1521286 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2013) (finding <statefarmlouisville.com> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Tryon Enterprises, LLC, FA 1495913 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 5, 2013) (finding <cedarrapidsstatefarm.com>, <iowacitystatefarm.com>, and <northlibertystatefarm.com> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); La-Z-Boy Chair Co. v. Phil Stoma, FA 1410424 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 16, 2011) (finding <lazboylouisiana.com>, <lazboy‑louisiana.com>, and <lazboy‑lafayette.com> confusingly similar to LA‑Z‑BOY). The Panel therefore considers the domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
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 Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's mark without authorization, and its only apparent use has been for a website comprised of pay-per-click links relating to Complainant's industry, including links to Complainant's competitors. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Tulip Co. / Tulip Trading Co., FA 1681653 (Forum Aug. 2, 2016) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests in similar circumstances); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Brad Zude, supra (same). Respondent's assertion that the domain name was registered for a local agent affiliated with Complainant is unsupported by evidence; indeed, Respondent does not even identify the agent for whom the domain name was supposedly registered. 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 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.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been 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."
As noted above, Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's well-known mark without authorization. The only apparent use of the domain name has been to display a page of pay-per-click links relating to Complainant's industry, including links to Complainant's competitors. Under the circumstances the Panel infers that Respondent registered the domain name with Complainant's mark and this particular use in mind. See, e.g., Capital One Financial Corp. v. Michal Restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1696469 (Forum Nov. 2, 2016); Altria Group, Inc. & Altria Group Distribution Co. v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1670787 (Forum May 24, 2016). Respondent's use of a privacy registration service to conceal his identity, although not itself dispositive, is a further indication of bad faith. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Tulip Co. / Tulip Trading Co., supra; Altria Group, Inc. & Altria Group Distribution Co. v. Zhichao Yang, supra. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <statefarmlafayettela.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: December 1, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page