State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Bill Edwards
Claim Number: FA0608000787165
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Janice K. Forrest, of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, One State Farm Plaza, A-3, Bloomington, IL 61710. Respondent is Bill Edwards (“Respondent”), PO Box 459, Austin, TX 78704.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <state-farm-bank.com>, registered with Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 31, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 1, 2006.
On September 6, 2006, Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <state-farm-bank.com> domain name is registered with Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On September 7, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 27, 2006 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@state-farm-bank.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 3, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <state-farm-bank.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM BANK mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <state-farm-bank.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <state-farm-bank.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,
is nationally known company that has been conducting business under the “State
Farm” name since at least 1930.
Complainant offers various services in both the insurance and financial
services industries. In 1999
Complainant opened a Federally Chartered Bank known under the STATE FARM BANK
mark. In accordance with its use of
this mark, Complainant has registered the STATE FARM BANK mark with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,319,867 issued
February 15, 2000).
Respondent registered the <state-farm-bank.com> domain name on January 30, 2006. Respondent’s dispute domain name resolves to a website the contains hyperlinks to third-party websites, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant.
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."
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(e), 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.”).
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.
The Panel finds that Complainant’s federal registration with the USPTO sufficiently establishes Complainant’s right in the STATE FARM BANK mark. See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see also Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive [or] have acquired secondary meaning.”).
The Panel finds that Respondent’s <state-farm-bank.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM BANK mark as it contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety with the addition of hyphens between the words of the mark. In Sports Auth. Mich. Inc. v. Batu 5, FA 176541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 23, 2003), the panel found that the addition of a hyphen to a complainant's mark did not create a distinct characteristic capable of overcoming a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) confusingly similar analysis. See Dollar Fin. Group, Inc. v. Advanced Legal Sys., Inc., FA 95102 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2000) (finding that the domain name <loan-mart.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been
satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <state-farm-bank.com> domain name. Complainant has the initial burden of proof in establishing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint raises a presumption that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <state-farm-bank.com> domain name. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“[Rule 14(b)] expressly provide[s] that the Panel ‘shall draw such inferences’ from the Respondent’s failure to comply with the rules ‘as it considers appropriate.”); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the panel to draw adverse inferences from the respondent’s failure to reply to the complaint). However, the Panel will now examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not authorized to use
Complainant’s STATE FARM BANK mark and that Respondent is not associated with
Complainant in any way. Furthermore,
Respondent’s WHOIS information does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known
by the <state-farm-bank.com>
domain name. In Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar.
14, 2000), the panel found no rights or legitimate interests where the
respondent was not commonly known by the mark and had never applied for a
license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name. See Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA 173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that
without demonstrable evidence to support the assertion that a respondent is commonly
known by a domain name, the assertion must be rejected).
The evidence on record indicates that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to display links to third-party websites, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant. Such use of the <state-farm-bank.com> domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark, websites where the respondent presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the Policy); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Dot Stop, FA 145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to its own website, which contained a series of hyperlinks to unrelated websites, was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been
satisfied.
Respondent is using the <state-farm-bank.com> domain name to divert Internet users to a
website that displays links to third-party websites, some of which are in
direct competition with Complainant.
The Panel finds that such use constitutes disruption and is evidence of
bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See
EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the
respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith
where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction
sites); see
also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb.
Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the respondent acted in bad faith by attracting
Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s business).
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to display links to third-party websites, a use that the Panel infers is for the commercial gain of Respondent through the earning of click-through fees. Additionally, the <state-farm-bank.com> domain name creates a likelihood of confusion as to the source and affiliation of Complainant with the disputed domain name and corresponding website. Such use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if the respondent profits from its diversionary use of the complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails to contest the complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Warren, FA 204147 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (“Although Complainant’s principal website is <century21.com>, many Internet users are likely to use search engines to find Complainant’s website, only to be mislead to Respondent’s website at the <century21realty.biz> domain name, which features links for competing real estate websites. Therefore, it is likely that Internet users seeking Complainant’s website, but who end up at Respondent’s website, will be confused as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <state-farm-bank.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: October 17, 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum