State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Godaddy Software c/o domains for sale, Godaddy Software
Claim Number: FA0804001181045
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Janice
K. Forrest, of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarmcollisionservices.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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On April
28, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of May
19, 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@statefarmcollisionservices.com
by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
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 <statefarmcollisionservices.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarmcollisionservices.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <statefarmcollisionservices.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, is in the business of insurance and
financial services. Complainant uses the
STATE FARM mark in accordance with this business and registered the mark with
the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on
Respondent, Godaddy Software c/o domains for sale, Godaddy
Software, registered the disputed domain name on
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 sufficient
rights in the STATE FARM mark by its registration with the USPTO in accordance
with Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent’s <statefarmcollisionservices.com>
domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire STATE FARM mark without the space
and adds the generic phrase “collision services,” which has an obvious
relationship to Complainant’s business of offering automobile insurance and
services. When evaluating if a domain
name is confusingly similar to a mark, the addition of a generic top-level
“.com” domain is irrelevant. Therefore,
the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell,
AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the
respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term
that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9,
2000) (finding that “[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive
word . . . nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall
impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark
SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied); 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.
The burden of proof shifts to Respondent after Complainant
makes a prima facie case that
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name. The Panel finds that Complainant
has established a prima facie case
that is furthered by the presumption from Respondent’s failure to respond. The Panel nevertheless chooses to evaluate
all of the evidence under Policy ¶ 4(c).
See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The
Panel finds that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect
Internet users that are seeking Complainant to a website that advertises for
Respondent’s business, which is not a bona fide offering of goods or
services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under
Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am.
Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704
(Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert
Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for
Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under
Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under
Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Golden Bear Int’l, Inc. v. Kangdeock-ho,
FA 190644 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003) (“Respondent's use of a domain name
confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to websites
unrelated to Complainant's business does not represent a bona fide offering of
goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
According to the WHOIS
registration information and based on all other uncontested evidence in the
record, Respondent is not commonly known by the <statefarmcollisionservices.com>
domain name. Additionally, Complainant
asserts that Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to utilize
Complainant’s STATE FARM mark in association with the disputed domain
name. Therefore, the Panel finds that
Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See G.D. Searle
& Co. v. Cimock, FA 126829 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Nov. 13, 2003) (“Due
to the fame of Complainant’s mark there must be strong evidence that Respondent
is commonly known by the disputed domain name in order to find that Respondent
has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). However, there is no
evidence on record, and Respondent has not come forward with any proof to
establish that it is commonly known as CELEBREXRX or <celebrexrx.com>.”);
see also RMO,
Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Complainant has met Policy ¶
4(a)(ii).
Respondent is attempting to capitalize on the likelihood of
confusion with respect to Complainant’s association and sponsorship of the
website resolving from the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent is attempting
to commercially benefit from its registration and use of the disputed domain
name, and such action constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bank of Am. Corp. v.
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 <statefarmcollisionservices.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: June 6, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum