State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Tulip Trading Company
Claim Number: FA1801001769529
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("Complainant"), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Tulip Trading Company ("Respondent"), Saint Kitts and Nevis.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarmresources.com>, registered with Key-Systems GmbH.
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 January 30, 2018; the Forum received payment on January 30, 2018.
On Jan 31, 2018, Key-Systems GmbH confirmed by email to the Forum that the <statefarmresources.com> domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Key-Systems GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems GmbH 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 January 31, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 20, 2018 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@statefarmresources.com. Also on January 31, 2018, 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 February 21, 2018, 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 trademark registrations for STATE FARM and related marks in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the European Community.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <statefarmresources.com> in July 2017, using a privacy registration service in an attempt to conceal its identity. The domain name initially resolved to a web page comprised of links related to Complainant or its industry, and later to a page containing a virus warning. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; that Respondent is not associated with, affiliated with, or sponsored by Complainant; and that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to register the disputed domain name or to use Complainant's mark for business purposes.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <statefarmresources.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's STATE FARM mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
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 is 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.").
The disputed domain name <statefarmresources.com> adds the generic term "resources" and the ".com" top-level domain to Complainant's registered STATE FARM mark, omitting the space. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Tulip Trading Co., FA 1745162 (Forum Sept. 25, 2017) (finding <logontostatefarm.com> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Tulip Trading Co., FA 1701155 (Forum Dec. 12, 2016) (finding <statefarmclaimstatus.com> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Tulip Co. / Tulip Trading Co., FA 1681653 (Forum Aug. 2, 2016) (finding <statefarmfireclaims.com> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Online Management, D2014-1235 (WIPO Sept. 3, 2014) (finding <gileadhivresources.com> confusingly similar to GILEAD); First Active plc v. First Active group c/o Hans, FA 1082281 (Forum Nov. 12, 2007) (finding <firstactiveresources.com> confusingly similar to FIRST ACTIVE). The Panel therefore considers the domain name 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 name incorporates Complainant's mark without authorization, and the uses to which the domain name has been put are unlikely to give rise to rights or legitimate interests. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Tulip Trading Co., FA 1701155, supra (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests where domain name was used for web page comprised of links to various insurance companies or products); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Tulip Co. / Tulip Trading Co., FA 1681653, supra (same).
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 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 the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy, 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)(iii), 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."
Respondent registered a domain name that was clearly intended to convey the impression that it belongs to Complainant, and is using this domain name for the purpose of displaying and presumably profiting from links to third-party websites, including competitors of Complainant. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Tulip Co. / Tulip Trading Co., FA 1681653, supra. Furthermore, the Panel notes that Respondent has been found in several previous proceedings under the Policy to have registered domain names in bad faith, including domain names incorporating Complainant's STATE FARM mark, suggesting a pattern of bad faith registrations under paragraph 4(b)(ii). See, e.g., id. Finally, Respondent's use of a privacy registration service to conceal its identity is a further indication of bad faith. See id. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is 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 <statefarmresources.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: February 23, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page