Country Mutual Insurance Company and Country Life Insurance Company v. Zhichao
Claim Number: FA2112001976493
Complainant is Country Mutual Insurance Company and Country Life Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Liz Brodzinski of Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., Illinois, USA. Respondent is Zhichao (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <countryfinancail.com>, <countryfinncial.com>, and <countryfinancual.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 December 9, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 9, 2021.
On December 9, 2021, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <countryfinancail.com>, <countryfinncial.com>, and <countryfinancual.com> domain names are registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 December 10, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 30, 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@countryfinancail.com, postmaster@countryfinncial.com, postmaster@countryfinancual.com. Also on December 10, 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 January 5, 2022, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Country Mutual Insurance Company and Country Life Insurance Company, has utilized its COUNTRY FINANCIAL mark since its inception nearly 100 years ago.
Complainant maintains registration in its COUNTRY FINANCIAL mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
The <countryfinancail.com>, <countryfinncial.com>, and <countryfinancual.com> domain names because are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark Respondent wholly incorporates Complainant’s COUNTRY FINANCIAL mark, but for misspelling the term “FINANCIAL” found in Complainant’s mark, while adding in the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to form a domain name.
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <countryfinancail.com>, <countryfinncial.com>, or <countryfinancual.com> domain names because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names; nor has Respondent been authorized to use Complainant’s COUNTRY FINANCIAL mark. Respondent is not using the domain names in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the domain name to host pay-per-click advertisements related to, and in competition with, Complainant’s COUNTRY FINANCIAL mark.
Respondent registered and uses the <countryfinancail.com>, <countryfinncial.com>, and <countryfinancual.com> domain names in bad faith. Respondent has a pattern of adverse rulings against it in previous UDRP proceedings. Respondent further uses the domain name as an attraction for commercial gain because the website addressed by the domain names displays pay-per-click advertisements related to Complainant’s services. Respondent further typosquats on Complainant’s mark and Respondent acted with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the COUNTRY FINANCIAL mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the COUNTRY FINANCIAL trademark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain names after Complainant acquired rights in the COUNTRY FINANCIAL trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain names to address a webpage that promotes pay-per-click type hyperlinks including some that offer services similar to those services offered by Complainant.
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 names are each confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant shows that it has a USPTO registration for the COUNTRY FINANCIAL trademark. Any relevant national trademark registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that Complainant’s registration of the BROOKS mark with the USPTO sufficiently conferred its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <countryfinancail.com>, <countryfinncial.com>, and <countryfinancual.com> domain names each contain an obviously misspelled variant of Complainant COUNTRY FINANCIAL trademark (less its domain name impermissible space); each at-issue domain name concludes with the domain top-level domain name “.com.” The differences between Respondent’s domain names and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish either <countryfinancail.com>, <countryfinncial.com>, or <countryfinancual.com> from Complainant’s COUNTRY FINANCIAL mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <countryfinancail.com>, <countryfinncial.com>, and <countryfinancual.com> domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant’s COUNTRY FINANCIAL trademark. See Royal Bank of Scotland Grp. plc et al. v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (“The Panel finds that merely by misspelling Complainants’ mark, Respondent has not sufficiently differentiated the <privelage.com> domain name from the PRIVILEGE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Shuai Wei Xu / Xu Shuai Wei, FA 1784238 (Forum June 1, 2018) (“Respondent arrives at each of the disputed domain names by merely misspelling each of the disputed domain names and adding the gTLD ‘.com.’ This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s trademark.”).
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, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of each 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. 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 at-issue domain names ultimately identifies the domain names’ registrant as “Zhichao” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by any of the at-issue domain names. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <countryfinancail.com>, <countryfinncial.com>, or <countryfinancual.com> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Respondent uses the confusingly similar <countryfinancail.com>, <countryfinncial.com>, and <countryfinancual.com> domain names to address a webpage displaying links to third-party advertising including pay-per-click links to services that are offered by Complainant. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain names in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) regarding any of the at-issue domain names. 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 and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of each at-issue domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <countryfinancail.com>, <countryfinncial.com>, and <countryfinancual.com> domain names were each 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 regarding each of the domain names.
First, Respondent has suffered numerous adverse UDRP decisions as a respondent. Respondent’s repeated cybersquatting evidences a pattern of domain name abuse and suggests Respondent’s bad faith in the instant case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Tommy John, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA2001001878688 (Forum Feb. 6, 2020) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants).
Next, as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests Respondent uses its confusingly similar <countryfinancail.com>, <countryfinncial.com>, and <countryfinancual.com> domain names to address a webpage displaying hyperlinks related to services similar to those services provided by Complainant. Doing so shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain names under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Zynex Medical, Inc. v. New Ventures Services, Corp, FA 1788042 (Forum July 2, 2018) (“The resolving webpage [] appears to display [competing] links such as “Electrical Stimulation” and “Physical Therapy Software.” Accordingly, the Panel agrees that Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business and attempted to commercially benefit off Complainant’s mark in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) & (iv).”).
Furthermore, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the string in a domain name hoping that internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark, or will otherwise confuse a misspelled trademark laden domain name with its target trademark. Here, the at-issue domain names incorporate recognizable versions of Complainant’s COUNTRY FINANCIAL mark where the mark’s “FINANCIAL” term is overtly misspelled. Respondent’s typosquatting in itself is evidence of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith. 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)); see also, Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Skander, FA 135598 (Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (stating that “[b]y registering the ‘typosquatted’ domain name in [Complainant’s] affiliate program, Respondent profits on the goodwill of [Complainant’s] protected marks and primary Internet domain names,” which is evidence of bad faith registration and use).
Finally, Respondent registered <countryfinancail.com>, <countryfinncial.com>, and <countryfinancual.com> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the COUNTRY FINANCIAL mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from Respondent’s overt targeting of Complainant’s COUNTRY FINANCIAL trademark via typosquatting and from Respondent’s use of the domain names to promote services similar to those offered by Complainant. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's COUNTRY FINANCIAL trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <countryfinancail.com>, <countryfinncial.com>, and <countryfinancual.com> domain names 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 <countryfinancail.com>, <countryfinncial.com>, and <countryfinancual.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: January 6, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page