State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. gaolei / gao lei
Claim Number: FA1906001846172
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is gaolei / gao lei (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefa4m.com>, registered with NameSilo, 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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 3, 2019; the Forum received payment on June 3, 2019.
On June 3, 2019, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <statefa4m.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 June 4, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 24, 2019 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@statefa4m.com. Also on June 4, 2019, 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 June 27, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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 operates in the insurance industry. Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,211,626, registered September 18, 2012). Respondent’s <statefa4m.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s STATE FARM mark, and merely changes the “r” to a “4” and adds the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <statefa4m.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s STATE FARM mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in good faith and in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name in attempt to create the impression of association with Complainant, its agents, products, sponsorships, and services; to trade off the good will associated with Complainant’s mark; and/or to create initial interest confusion for individuals looking for information about State Farm.
Respondent registered and uses the <statefa4m.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract Internet users to the disputed domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s STATE FARM mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. Finally, Respondent engages in typosquatting.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant operates in the insurance industry. Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,211,626, registered September 18, 2012). Respondent’s <statefa4m.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 25, 2018.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <statefa4m.com> domain name. Respondent uses the disputed domain name in attempt to create the impression of association with Complainant, its agents, products, sponsorships, and services; to trade off the good will associated with Complainant’s mark; and/or to create initial interest confusion for individuals looking for information about State Farm.
Respondent registered and uses the <statefa4m.com> domain name 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."
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”).
Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon registration with the USPTO. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <statefa4m.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s STATE FARM mark, and merely changes the “r” to a “4” and adds “.com” gTLD.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the statefa4m.com> domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the STATE FARM mark. The WHOIS information for the domain name shows that the Registrant is “Gaolei / Gao Lei.” Therefore, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name).
Respondent has not used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a webpage featuring content written in Chinese with click through links. In addition, Respondent’s typosquatting supports an inference that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website, confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) (“Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] 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).”).
Respondent registered and uses the <statefa4m.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because Respondent attempts to attract, Internet users to the disputed domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. See PopSockets LLC v. san mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 27, 2017) (finding disruption of a complainant’s business which was not directly commercial competitive behavior was nonetheless sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STATE FARM mark prior to registering the <statefa4m.com> domain name. Therefore, Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, Respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Shuai Wei Xu / Xu Shuai Wei, FA 1784238 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding the respondent engaged in typosquatting—and thus registered and used the at-issue domain names in bad faith—where the names consisted of the complainant’s mark with small typographical errors introduced therein).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <statefa4m.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: July 11, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page