State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. ANONYMOUSSPEECH ANONYMOUSSPEECH
Claim Number: FA1709001749257
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is ANONYMOUSSPEECH ANONYMOUSSPEECH (“Respondent”), Japan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <nancyrangelstatefarm.com>, registered with eNom, 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.
Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 15, 2017; the Forum received payment on September 15, 2017.
On September 19, 2017, eNom, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <nancyrangelstatefarm.com> domain name is registered with eNom, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, 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 September 21, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 11, 2017 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@nancyrangelstatefarm.com. Also on September 21, 2017, 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 October 13, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 asserts trademark rights in STATE FARM and alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent has not filed a Response.
The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:
1. Complainant is a U.S. national insurance provider which since 1930 has offered its services by reference to the trademark STATE FARM;
2. Complainant owns, inter alia, United States Trademark Reg. No. 1,979,585 registered June 11, 1996 for the word mark STATE FARM;
3. the disputed domain name was registered on January 26, 2017; and
4. the domain name does not resolve to an active website and there is no evidence of its use otherwise.
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.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
For the reasons which follow, the Panel need not examine paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. It is, however, noteworthy that the Complaint makes an unsupported assertion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
So far as relevant, the Complaint states that:
“The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not associated with, affiliated with or sponsored by State Farm. State Farm did not authorize the Respondent to register the domain name or to use the State Farm trademark for the Respondent’s business purposes.
Respondent is not commonly known under the domain name “NancyRangelStateFarm.com.” It is believed that the Respondent has never been known by or performed business under the domain name at issue. The Respondent does not possess independent intellectual property rights in the name. In addition, State Farm does not have a contractual arrangement with Respondent that would allow them to offer services under the State Farm name.
State Farm believes that the Respondent registered the name to create the impression of association with State Farm, its agents, products, sponsorships, and services; to trade off the good will associated with the State Farm name; and/or to create initial interest confusion for individuals looking for information about State Farm.”
The Panel notes that Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (see Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)). Further, absent a Response, the Panel is entitled to draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules and to accept Complainant’s reasonable allegations unless the evidence is contradictory (see Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000)). In that regard the Panel is entitled to inform itself of essential claims made in the Complaint.
In this case, the Panel’s starting point is its observation that the Complaint lacks any detail (under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, or elsewhere) in support of the assertion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. Plainly, the disputed domain name is a combination of the name, Nancy Rangel, the trademark and a gTLD. The Complaint is no guide as to the significance of the personal name. In these circumstances the Panel found that an internet search of the name Nancy Rangel was justified. That search uncovered as its first hit the following link: https://www.statefarm.com/agent/US/CA/Huntingtn-Bch/Nancy-Rangel-QP0WR5Z6YAK.
That link is to Complainant’s website and in particular to its Huntington Beach, California, licensed agent Nancy Rangel. For the sake of certainty, if approached via the homepage of Complainant’s website and the zipcode of Huntington Beach, 92648-2089, is added to the homepage “Find an agent” locator, then Nancy Rangel appears as the second listed agent at that place (see https://www.statefarm.com/agent/?location=92648-2089).
This information casts a heavy cloud over Complainant’s assertions that Respondent “is not associated with, affiliated with or sponsored by State Farm” and “State Farm does not have a contractual arrangement with Respondent that would allow them to offer services under the State Farm name.”
That said, the Panel notes that the publicly available WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “ANONYMOUSSPEECH” of Japan, not Nancy Rangel. Whilst the claims referred to above are therefore true, the Complaint is nonetheless silent about the fact that, once more, a cursory internet search shows that ANONYMOUSSPEECH is a business which, amongst its other services, “keeps your domain anonymous”, registering “your domain name anonymously and 100% offshore in Japan.” (see https://www.anonymousspeech.com).
There is no evidence that Complainant sought to identify the underlying owner of the disputed domain name. The Panel understands that a third party rogue may have assumed Nancy Rangel’s identity for the purposes of registration of the domain name, but it would have been a simple matter for Complainant to have provided a statement to that effect. The Panel notes that pre-Complaint demand letters went unanswered, but also notes that those letters were sent to the privacy service provider. On balance, the Panel finds that Complainant has not made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Complainant has not satisfied the second limb of the Policy and for that reason the Complaint fails.
Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith. For the reasons already given, no findings are required.
Having failed to establish one of the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <nancyrangelstatefarm.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist
Dated: October 16, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page