State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot
Claim Number: FA2001001878031
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <xtatefarm.com> registered with Dynadot, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 8, 2020; the Forum received payment on January 8, 2020.
On January 8, 2020, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <xtatefarm.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, 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 January 9, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 29, 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@xtatefarm.com. Also on January 9, 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 January 31, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, is an insurance and financial services provider.
Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Moreover, Complainant has common law rights in the STATE FARM mark as the mark has been in use since 1930.
Respondent’s <xtatefarm.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark, as the use of Complainant’s mark makes the reading of the syntax of the domain confusingly similar.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <xtatefarm.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use the STATE FARM mark in any manner. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to create the impression of association with Complainant by hosting a parked webpage with click through links.
Respondent registered and is using the <xtatefarm.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract users seeking Complainant and create confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the site. Respondent also engages in typosquatting.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in the STATE FARM mark.
Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in STATE FARM.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to host a parked website displaying click-through links.
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”).
The at-issue domain is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO registration of its STATE FARM mark establishes Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
The at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s STATE FARM trademark, less its space, with its “s” replaced with an “x,” all appended with the top level domain name “.com.” The differences between the <xtatefarm.com> domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that the <xtatefarm.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark. See Omaha Steaks International, Inc. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1610122 (Forum July 9, 2015) (finding, “The domain name differs from the mark only in that the domain name substitutes the letter ‘a’ in the word ‘steak’ with the letter ‘c’ and adds the generic Top Level Domain (‘gTLD’) ‘.com.’ These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy.”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
The WHOIS information for <xtatefarm.com> indicates that “Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot” is the domain name’s registrant. Further, there is nothing in the record before the Panel that indicates that Respondent is otherwise known by the <xtatefarm.com> domain name. Given the foregoing, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Additionally, Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name to address a website displaying click-through links is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent’s <xtatefarm.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
As mentioned above regarding rights and interests, Respondent uses the <xtatefarm.com> domain name to host click-through links. Respondent’s at-issue domain name is ultimately aimed at confusing consumers and disrupting Complainant’s business for the benefit of Respondent. Respondent’s antics are indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”).
Furthermore, Respondent is engaged in typosquatting. See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. IS / ICS INC, FA 16070016833 (Forum Aug. 11, 2016) (“Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant, such as Respondent, deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the string in a domain name. The conniving registrant wishes and hopes that Internet users will inadvertently type the malformed trademark or read the domain name and believe it is legitimately associated with the target trademark. In doing so, wayward Internet users are fraudulently directed to a web presence controlled by the confusingly similar domain name’s registrant.”). Here, in creating the at-issue domain name Respondent substitutes the “s” in Complainant’s trademark with an “x.” Typosquatting, in itself, indicates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
Finally, Respondent registered the <xtatefarm.com> domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the STATE FARM mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s overt misspelling of the STATE FARM trademark in the at-issue domain name. Given the forgoing, it is clear that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain name precisely to improperly exploit its trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <xtatefarm.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering 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 <xtatefarm.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: January 31, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page