State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Qui Shengjie d/b/a Yima
Claim Number: FA0705000991965
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Janice
K. Forrest, of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarmcarinsurancequote.info>, registered with eNom.
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.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 23, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 24, 2007.
On May 23, 2007, eNom confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <statefarmcarinsurancequote.info> domain name is registered with eNom and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom 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 May 25, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 14, 2007 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@statefarmcarinsurancequote.info by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 21, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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:
Complainant is a well-known provider of insurance and financial services.
In connection with the provision of these services, Complainant has registered a number of trademarks and service marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) including the STATE FARM service mark (Reg. No. 1,979,585, issued June 11, 1996).
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 25, 2007.
The disputed domain name resolves a website containing links for various insurance products and companies, including those in direct competition with the business of Complainant.
Respondent’s <statefarmcarinsurancequote.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark.
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <statefarmcarinsurancequote.info>.
Respondent registered and uses the <statefarmcarinsurancequote.info> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a 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 same domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent 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."
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 a respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of a 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:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
ii. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant asserts rights in the STATE FARM mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO. Complainant’s registration and extensive use of the STATE FARM mark establish its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that a complainant’s registration of the MADD mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office established its rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Ameridream, Inc. v. Russell, FA 677782 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 24, 2006) (holding that a complainant’s registration of the AMERIDREAM mark with the USPTO established its rights in that mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic or descriptive terms “car,” “insurance,” and “quote,” as well as the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.info.” The addition of a series of generic or descriptive terms that describe Complainant’s business, as well as a gTLD, demonstrates confusing similarity of the domain name with the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar to a competing mark); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that the <hoylecasino.net> domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a generic word describing the type of business in which that complainant engaged, does not take the disputed domain name out of the realm of confusing similarity).
The Panel therefore finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Where Complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to set forth evidence indicating that it has rights or legitimate interests in its domain name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v. Tomasso Di Salvatore, D2006-1417 (WIPO Feb. 1, 2007):
Proper
analysis of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy shows
that the burden of proof shifts from the Complainant to the Respondent once the
Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights
or interests in the domain names.
We conclude from the evidence before us that Complainant’s assertions are sufficient to establish a prima facie case for purposes of the Policy. See Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under appropriate circumstances, as here, the assertion by a complainant that a 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).
Complainant alleges, and Respondent does not deny, that the disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying links to third-party websites, including some that directly compete with the business of Complainant. We therefore conclude that such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that a respondent’s diversionary use of a complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed links, some of which resolved to websites of that complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Hale Prods., Inc. v. Hart Int’l Inc., FA 198031 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 2, 2003) (finding that a respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the <jawsoflife.com> domain name because that respondent diverted Internet users to a website of one of its complainant’s competitors).
Complainant attests that Respondent is not commonly known by
the disputed domain name. Respondent
does not deny this allegation. An examination of Respondent’s WHOIS
registration information lists “Qui Shengjie d/b/a Yima” as the registrant of
the disputed domain name. We therefore conclude
that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (concluding that the fact that “nothing in
Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’
the disputed domain name” is a factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Wells Fargo &
Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA
198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003): “Given the WHOIS contact information
for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate
Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”
The Panel thus finds that Policy ¶
4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Presumably, Complainant receives financial benefit from the purposeful misdirection of Internet traffic in the form of click-through fees. Additionally, unsuspecting Internet users expecting to view a website associated with Complainant’s business are likely to be confused as to the possible source or affiliation of the resulting website. Therefore Complainant’s use amounts to an attraction for commercial gain, which suggests registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where a respondent was diverting Internet users searching for a complainant to its own website and likely profiting from click-through fees); see also BPI Comm’cns, Inc. v. Boogie TV LLC, FA 105755 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2002): “Complainants are in the music and entertainment business. The links associated with <billboard.tv> and <boogie.tv> appear to be in competition for the same Internet users, which Complainants are trying to attract with the <billboard.com> web site. There is clearly a likelihood of confusion between <billboard.tv> and BILLBOARD as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or of a product or service on the web site.”
In addition, it appears that this Respondent registered the disputed
domain name <statefarmcarinsurancequote.info>
with at least constructive knowledge of
Complainant’s rights in the STATE FARM trademark by virtue of Complainant’s prior
registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Registration of a confusingly similar domain
name despite such constructive knowledge is, without more, evidence of bad
faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Digi
Int’l v. DDI Sys.,
FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002); see also Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Oct. 4, 2002).
For these reasons, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Complainant having established all three elements required to be proven under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the relief requested must be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <statefarmcarinsurancequote.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: June 26, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum