State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. hennry williamson
Claim Number: FA2012001923736
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is hennry williamson (“Respondent”), Arkansas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarmpay.online> (‘the Domain Name’), registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 3, 2020; the Forum received payment on December 3, 2020.
On December 3, 2020, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <statefarmpay.online> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 8, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 28, 2020 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@statefarmpay.online. Also on December 8, 2020, 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 31, 2020 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant is the owner of the mark STATE FARM registered, inter alia, in the USA with first use recorded as 1956.
The Domain Name registered in 2020 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark adding only the generic term ‘pay’ and the gTLD “.online” which do not prevent said confusing similarity.
The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorized by the Complainant.
The Domain Name has been used for a My Blog webpage which has no real substantive content. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent has acted in bad faith, failing to make active use of the Domain Name, disrupting the Complainant’s business, diverting Internet users for commercial gain with actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the mark STATE FARM registered, inter alia, in the USA with first use recorded as 1956.
The Domain Name registered in 2020 has been used for a My Blog page which lacks substantive content and so is tantamount to a holding page.
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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term ‘pay’ does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's registered trade mark.
The gTLD “.online” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
There has been no real use of the Domain Name. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (Where the panel found inactive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)).
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register a domain name containing the Complainant’s distinctive mark.
Failing to make active use of a disputed domain name can demonstrate bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <statefarmpay.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: January 4, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page