State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. shilei
Claim Number: FA1511001649870
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Sherri Dunbar of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is shilei (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <wwwexperiencestatefarm.com>, registered with Ourdomains Limited.
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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 25, 2015; the Forum received payment on November 25, 2015.
On November 25, 2015, Ourdomains Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <wwwexperiencestatefarm.com> domain name is registered with Ourdomains Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Ourdomains Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Ourdomains Limited 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 December 1, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 21, 2015 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@wwwexperiencestatefarm.com. Also on December 1, 2015, 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 December 23, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port 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 uses the STATE FARM mark while engaging in business in both the insurance and the financial services industry. Complainant owns the STATE FARM mark through its trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,979,585, registered June 11, 1996). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark, as Respondent has simply removed the space between the words of the mark and adds the generic term “experience” and the common prefix “www,” along with the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been licensed or authorized to use the STATE FARM mark. Respondent has failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to host hyperlinks to various insurance companies, including some of Complainant’s competitors.
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent has offered to sell the disputed domain name, which indicates bad faith. Further, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The disputed domain name was registered on September 23, 2015.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered and famous trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
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(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.”).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered and famous trademark. Complainant has adequately established its rights in and to the trademark STATE FARM. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by merely deleting spaces and appending the generic word “experience” to the beginning of the trademark. These are differences that fail to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s registered and famous trademark.
The Panel, therefore, finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered and famous trademark.
Respondent apparently lacks any rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, because Respondent has neither been licensed nor authorized to use the STATE FARM mark. Further, Complainant points to the available WHOIS information, which lists “shilei” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, as further indication that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has failed to respond to the proceeding, and thus cannot refute any of Complainant’s contentions.
Given the lack of evidence to infer otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Next, Complainant urges that Respondent has failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Rather, Complainant alleges that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to host links to various insurance companies, including some of Complainant’s competitors. See Compl., at Attached Ex. 3. Previous panels have consistently held in accordance with Complainant’s argument here. See Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. v. Bigfoot Ventures LLC, FA 1195961 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2008) (holding that the respondent had not demonstrated a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use when “the website resolving from the disputed domain name displays links to travel products and services, which directly compete with Complainant’s business”).
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii), respectively and, therefore, has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). First, Complainant argues that Respondent has offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for profit ($1,500). See Compl., at Attached Ex. 4. Complainant believes that such evidence demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
The Panel agrees that Compl. at Attached Ex. 4 is evidence of Respondent’s attempt to sell the disputed domain name for a profit and, therefore, evidences Respondent’s bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
Next, as previously mentioned, Complainant argues that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to host links to competing websites. See Compl., at Attached Ex. 3. As there is no evidence in the record to counter such a claim, the Panel accepts as true Complainant’s representation that Respondent’s conduct disrupts its business. As such, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s competing use is further evidence that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration.
Finally, the Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s longstanding interests in and to the famous trademark STATE FARM. It is not believable that Respondent just happened on the disputed domain name out of coincidence.
As such, the Panel finds that the Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of 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 <wwwexperiencestatefarm.com> domain name transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: December 28, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page