State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD
Claim Number: FA2110001970242
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <stqtefarm.com>, registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited.
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 October 22, 2021; the Forum received payment on October 22, 2021.
On October 29, 2021, Media Elite Holdings Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <stqtefarm.com> domain name is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Media Elite Holdings Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Media Elite Holdings 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 November 1, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 22, 2021 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@stqtefarm.com. Also on November 1, 2021, 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 November 29, 2021, 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 engages in the business of insurance and financial services. Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 4,211,626, registered Sept. 18, 2012). Respondent’s <stqtefarm.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety replacing the letter “A” with “Q” along with adding the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent registered the <stqtefarm.com> domain name on August 11, 2020.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <stqtefarm.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the STATE FARM mark. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services by making use of the STATE FARM mark and creating a likelihood of confusion that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant.
Respondent registered and used the <stqtefarm.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to confuse internet users into some sort of affiliation exists between Complainant and Respondent. Respondent engages in the practice of typosquatting. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STATE FARM mark due to the long-standing use and fame of the mark in commerce.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant engages in the business of insurance and financial services. Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 4,211,626, registered Sept. 18, 2012). Respondent’s <stqtefarm.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <stqtefarm.com> domain name.
Respondent registered and used the <stqtefarm.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 through registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”).
Respondent’s <stqtefarm.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark. Registration of a domain name that incorporates a mark in its entirety and replaces a single letter and adds a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the <stqtefarm.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the STATE FARM mark. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Doman Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD” and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the STATE FARM mark or was commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services by making use of the STATE FARM mark and creating a likelihood of confusion that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to confuse internet users into thinking a respondent is affiliated with a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). 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).”). Here, Respondent’s <stqtefarm.com> domain name makes use of the STATE FARM mark in order to confuse internet users. Respondent’s domain name’s webpage resolves to Complainant’s own webpage. Therefore, Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Respondent registered and used the <stqtefarm.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to confuse internet users into believing some sort of affiliation exists between Complainant and Respondent. Use of a disputed domain name that confuses internet users into thinking respondent is affiliated with a complainant is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See BBY Solutions, Inc. v. Grant Ritzwoller, FA 1703389 (Forum Dec. 21, 2016) (finding bad faith because the <bestbuyus.com> domain name was obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known BEST BUY mark, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain), see also Verizon Trademark Servs. LLC v. Boyiko, FA 1382148 (Forum May 12, 2011) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name, even where it resolves to Complainant’s own site, is still registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Therefore, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Respondent also engages in the practice of typosquatting. A respondent engages in typosquatting by registering a domain name that contains small typographical errors. 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). Therefore, Respondent engages in typosquatting which is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STATE FARM mark at the time of registering the <stqtefarm.com> domain name. Therefore, Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”).
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 <stqtefarm.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: December 13, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page