State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Barbara Spohn
Claim Number: FA1707001738733
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("Complainant"), represented by Sherri Dunbar of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, U.S.A. Respondent is Barbara Spohn ("Respondent"), Washington, U.S.A.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <statefarmwashington.com>, <oakharborstatefarm.com>, <whidbeystatefarm.com>, <islandstatefarm.com>, and <statefarminsured.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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 July 6, 2017; the Forum received payment on July 6, 2017.
On Jul 07, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <statefarmwashington.com>, <oakharborstatefarm.com>, <whidbeystatefarm.com>, <islandstatefarm.com>, and <statefarminsured.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 July 10, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 31, 2017 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@statefarmwashington.com, postmaster@oakharborstatefarm.com, postmaster@whidbeystatefarm.com, postmaster@islandstatefarm.com, postmaster@statefarminsured.com. Also on July 10, 2017, 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 August 1, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is a nationally known company engaged in the insurance and financial services industries. Complainant began using the STATE FARM mark in 1930, and owns various U.S. registrations for STATE FARM and related marks.
Respondent registered the disputed domain names <statefarmwashington.com>, <oakharborstatefarm.com>, <whidbeystatefarm.com>, <islandstatefarm.com>, and <statefarminsured.com> on February 11, 2017. The domain names resolve to web pages which state "Website Coming Soon," with no other content. Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to Complainant's STATE FARM mark. Complainant asserts that Respondent has never been known by nor performed business under the disputed domain names; that Respondent is not associated with, affiliated with, or sponsored by Complainant, nor authorized to use its marks; and that there is no contractual relationship between the parties.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to Complainant's STATE FARM mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being 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 (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.").
Four of the disputed domain names, <statefarmwashington.com>, <oakharborstatefarm.com>, <whidbeystatefarm.com>, and <islandstatefarm.com>, combine Complainant's registered STATE FARM mark with various geographic terms, omitting spaces and adding the ".com" top-level domain. The other disputed domain name, <statefarminsured.com>, combines the mark with a generic term relating to Complainant's business. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain names and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., 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 Insurance Co. v. Tom Reger, FA 95651 (Forum Nov. 14, 2000) (finding <statefarmclaims.com> confusingly similar to STATE FARM). The Panel therefore considers each of the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's marks without authorization, and Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain names. Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any 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 each of the disputed domain names.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and have been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(ii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was registered "in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [Respondent] ha[s] engaged in a pattern of such conduct." 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."
Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the disputed domain names. In the absence of any explanation from Respondent, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain names intending to use them in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant's mark, most likely either by selling the domain names or by using them to attract Internet users seeking Complainant, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain names for that purpose. See, e.g., Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Ernie Villa, FA 1668607 (Forum Apr. 29, 2016) (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Carmen Ibarcena, FA 1667145 (Forum Apr. 27, 2016) (same). Furthermore, Respondent's registration of four different ".com" domain names combining Complainant's mark with various related geographic terms (i.e., terms relating to the city of Oak Harbor, Washington, located on Whidbey Island in Island County), without explanation or apparent legitimate purpose, is suggestive of an intent to prevent Complainant or its licensees from reflecting the mark in corresponding domain names. See, e.g., Salvatore Ferragamo S.p.A v. Ying Chou, D2013-2034 (WIPO Jan. 28, 2014) (finding pattern of bad faith registrations based upon respondent's registration of four domain names incorporating complainant's mark).
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being 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 <statefarmwashington.com>, <oakharborstatefarm.com>, <whidbeystatefarm.com>, <islandstatefarm.com>, and <statefarminsured.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: August 14, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page