State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. gokor aper / statefarmclaims
Claim Number: FA1804001780208
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is gokor aper / statefarmclaims (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarmsupplement.com>, registered with Google 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 3, 2018; the Forum received payment on April 3, 2018.
On April 4, 2018, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <statefarmsupplement.com> domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 April 5, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 25, 2018 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@statefarmsupplement.com. Also on April 5, 2018, 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 April 30, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, is a famous business that engages in both the insurance and financial services industry.
Complainant uses the STATE FARM mark to provide and market its products and services.
Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 4,211,626, registered on Sep. 18, 2012).
Respondent’s <statefarmsupplement.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarmsupplement.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not granted Respondent permission or license to use the STATE FARM mark for any purpose. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the <statefarmsupplement.com> domain name to divert internet users away from Complainant to Respondent’s domain, where Respondent fails to make any use of the webpage.
Respondent has registered and used the <statefarmsupplement.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or location of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. Respondent creates this confusion, yet fails to make an active use of the disputed domain name. Further, Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent, to which Respondent failed to respond or comply. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STATE FARM mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in the STATE FARM mark.
Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in STATE FARM.
Respondent holds the at-issue domain name inactively.
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 at-issue domain is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO registration of its STATE FARM mark establishes Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i). ). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
The at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s entire STATE FARM trademark, less its space, followed by the descriptive term “supplement” and the top level domain name “.com.” The slight differences between the <statefarmsupplement.com> domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the trademark under Policy ¶4(a) (i). Therefore, the Panel finds that the <statefarmsupplement.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark. See Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also, HomeVestors of Am., Inc. v. Sean Terry, FA 1523266 (Forum Nov. 11, 2013) (“[T]he Panel notes that panels have previously held that a domain name’s elimination of spaces found in the complainant’s mark and addition of a gTLD such as “.com” do not sufficiently differentiate the domain name from the complainant’s mark for the purposes of a confusing similarity analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”);
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
WHOIS information for <statefarmsupplement.com> lists “gokor aper / statefarmclaims” as the domain name’s registrant. In spite of the Respondent’s inclusion of “statefarm” in the WHOIS information, there is nothing in the record before the Panel that persuasively indicates that Respondent is in fact known by the <statefarmsupplement.com> domain name. Given the foregoing the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Additionally, Respondent makes no demonstrable preparations to use the <statefarmsupplement.com> domain name. Holding a confusingly similar domain name inactively, as does Respondent, is not indicative of any bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(iii). See Kohler Co. v xi long chen, FA 1737910 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (”Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. Respondent’s <kohler-corporation.com> resolves to an inactive webpage displaying the message “website coming soon!”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent’s <statefarmsupplement.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First as mentioned above regarding rights and interests, Respondent fails to make active use of the <statefarmsupplement.com> domain name. Screen shots that Complainant includes in its Complainant’s Appendix show that an internet user browsing to the at-issue domain name finds no substantive content at such address but instead is greeted by an error message. Holding a confusingly similar domain name inactively evidences bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sang Im / Private Registration, FA1310001522801 (Forum Nov. 19, 2013) (holding that because the respondent’s website contained no content related to the domain name and instead generated the error message “Error 400- Bad Request,” the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
Furthermore, Respondent registered the <statefarmsupplement.com>domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the STATE FARM mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s overt incorporation of the STATE FARM trademark in the at-issue domain name. Given the forgoing, it is clear that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain name precisely to improperly exploit its trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <statefarmsupplement.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering 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 <statefarmsupplement.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: May 2, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page