State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Eric Gallite
Claim Number: FA0804001176737
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Debra
J. Monke, of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarm911.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 8, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 9, 2008.
On April 8, 2008, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <statefarm911.com> domain name is registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On April
10, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
April 30, 2008
by which Respondent could file a
response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and
fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as
technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@statefarm911.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 7, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <statefarm911.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarm911.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <statefarm911.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant engages in business in both the insurance and the financial services industries under the STATE FARM mark, which Complainant registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on June 11, 1996 (Reg. No. 1,979,585). Complainant began using the STATE FARM mark in 1930 and uses the mark in print, on television, and on the Internet to advertise its services.
Respondent registered the <statefarm911.com> domain name on December 21, 2007. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that says it is hosted for free by the registrar. Complainant sent three cease-and-desist letters to Respondent; in its response to the second letter, Respondent stated that it would accept a “reasonable offer” for the domain name.
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."
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in
the STATE FARM mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark
registration with the USPTO. See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick,
FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under
Complainant contends that Respondent’s
<statefarm911.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its STATE
FARM mark. The
<statefarm911.com> domain name differs from Complainant’s mark in three ways:
(1) the space between the terms has been removed; (2) the number “911” has been
added to the end of the mark; and (3) the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”)
“.com” has been added. Removing a space
and adding a gTLD are both insignificant changes and do not alter the meaning
of a mark. Adding numerals also does
very little to eliminate the possibility of confusion between the mark and a
domain name incorporating the mark.
Therefore, the Panel finds that these changes do not minimize or
eliminate the resulting likelihood of confusion, and so Respondent’s disputed
domain name is not sufficiently distinguished from Complainant’s mark pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Down E. Enter. Inc. v.
Countywide Commc’ns, FA 96613 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2001) (finding the
domain name <downeastmagazine.com> confusingly similar to the
complainant’s common law mark DOWN EAST, THE MAGAZINE OF MAINE); see also Am.
Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that adding
the suffixes "502" and "520" to the ICQ trademark does
little to reduce the potential for confusion); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v.
McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the
domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the
purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the <statefarm911.com> domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), after the complainant makes a prima facie case against the respondent, the respondent then has the burden of showing evidence that it does have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”); see also Euromarket Designs, Inc. v. Domain For Sale VMI, D2000-1195 (WIPO Oct. 26, 2000) (“In the absence of direct evidence, the complainant and the panel must resort to reasonable inferences from whatever evidence is in the record. In addition . . . Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules [authorizes] a panel to draw such inferences from respondent’s failure to respond ‘as it considers appropriate.’”).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known
by the <statefarm911.com> domain
name nor have they ever been the owner or licensee of the STATE FARM mark. The WHOIS record for the disputed domain name
lists Respondent as “Eric Gallite.” This
evidence, along with the fact that Respondent has failed to show any evidence
contrary to Complainant’s contentions, compels the Panel to find that
Respondent is not commonly known as <statefarm911.com>
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the
WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that
Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is not commonly known by the name
‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”); see
also Broadcom Corp. v.
Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no
rights or legitimate interests because the respondent is not commonly known by
the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a
legitimate or fair use).
In addition, the Panel finds that Respondent’s attempt to sell the disputed domain name is further evidence that Respondent lacked all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. Hyun-Jun Shin, FA 154098 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (holding that under the circumstances, the respondent’s apparent willingness to dispose of its rights in the disputed domain name suggested that it lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Am. Nat’l Red Cross v. Domains, FA 143684 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2003) (“Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name is further evidenced by Respondent’s attempt to sell its domain name registration to Complainant, the rightful holder of the RED CROSS mark.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent has made no use of the <statefarm911.com> domain name. The Panel finds that this inactive use of the
disputed domain name is evidence of registration and use in bad faith pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See DCI
Respondent has stated that it will entertain offers to purchase the <statefarm911.com> domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s offer to sell constitutes bad faith in the registration and use of the <statefarm911.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”); see also Grundfos A/S v. Lokale, D2000-1347 (WIPO Nov. 27, 2000) (finding that a failure to use the domain name in any context other than to offer it for sale to the complainant amounts to a use of the domain name in bad faith); see also Banca Popolare Friuladria S.p.A. v. Zago, D2000-0793 (WIPO Sept. 3, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent offered the domain names for sale).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <statefarm911.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: May 20, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum