State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. John Pfund
Claim Number: FA0810001230594
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 <statefarmvpp.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
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.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 22, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 23, 2008.
On October 23, 2008, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <statefarmvpp.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 October 24, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 13, 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@statefarmvpp.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 18, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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:
Complainant has been doing business under the “State Farm” name since 1930 by engaging in both the insurance and financial services industry.
Complainant holds a registration of the STATE FARM service mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No.: 1,979,585, issued as of June 11, 1996).
Respondent registered the <statefarmvpp.com> domain name on March 2, 2008.
The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying links to various third-party websites, some of which are in direct competition with the business of Complainant.
Respondent’s <statefarmvpp.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark.
Respondent does not have any rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name <statefarmvpp.com>.
Respondent registered and uses the <statefarmvpp.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to a service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent 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."
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 a 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:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
ii. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant has sufficiently established rights in the STATE FARM service mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because it holds a registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004): “Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”
Respondent’s <statefarmvpp.com> domain name contains Complainant’s entire mark and merely adds the letters “vpp.” The addition of these letters does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark for purposes of a confusing similarity analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Tullo, FA 150811 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 15, 2003) (finding that the <3daol.com> domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s AOL mark because “…the addition of the prefix ‘3d’ does nothing to ‘distinguish’ Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s registered trademarks.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Amigos On Line RJ, FA 115041 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 28, 2002) (finding that the <aolrj.com> domain name was confusingly similar to a complainant’s AOL mark because “…the addition of a string of indiscriminate letters to a famous mark in a second level domain does not differentiate the domain name from the mark.”)
The Panel therefore finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <statefarmvpp.com> domain name. Where that is done, the burden shifts to Respondent and to establish that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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.
Complainant has sufficiently made its prima facie showing under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint therefore permits us to conclude that it has no such rights or interests. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002):
Because
Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima
facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to
Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not
presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate
interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
We will nonetheless
examine the record to determine if there is any basis for concluding that
Respondent has rights or interests in its domain name cognizable under the
Policy.
We begin by
observing that there is no dispute as to Complainant’s allegation to the effect
that Respondent’s <statefarmvpp.com>
domain name resolves to a website that
displays links to various third-party websites, some of which are in direct
competition with the business of Complainant.
Accordingly, we may infer that Respondent receives click-through fees from
these links. That being so, Respondent’s
diversion of Internet users for a fee is not a bona fide offering of
goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Seiko
Kabushiki Kaisha v. CS into Tech,
FA 198795 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003):
Diverting customers, who are looking for products relating
to the famous SEIKO mark, to a website unrelated to the mark is not a bona fide
offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it represent a
noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
See also WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that a respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to a complainant’s mark, websites where that respondent presumably received a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the Policy).
Further, Respondent’s WHOIS information indicates that
Respondent is not commonly known by the <statefarmvpp.com>
domain name, but rather is known as “John Pfund,” and Respondent has not provided any evidence to suggest
otherwise. Accordingly, we conclude that
Respondent is not commonly known by the <statefarmvpp.com>
domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee
Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating that the fact
that “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is
‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as a factor in determining that
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA 173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that without
demonstrable evidence to support the assertion that a respondent is commonly
known by a domain name, the assertion must be rejected).
For these reasons, we find that
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
We have
already noted that Respondent’s <statefarmvpp.com>
domain name resolves to a website that
displays hyperlinks to third-party websites, some of which are in direct
competition with the business of Complainant.
This redirection of Internet users disrupts Complainant’s business and is
evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Disney
Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805
(Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003):
Respondent registered a domain name
confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a
competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of
registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for
Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).
See also EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding that a minor degree of variation from a complainant's marks suggests that a respondent, the complainant’s competitor, registered domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting that complainant's business).
Moreover,
it is evident that Respondent is using a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s service
mark, in the manner and circumstances alleged in the Complaint, for commercial gain.
This behavior creates a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s possible
affiliation with the <statefarmvpp.com>
domain name and is further evidence of bad faith registration
and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
As Respondent is using the domain name at issue in direct
competition with Complainant, and giving the impression of being affiliated
with or sponsored by Complainant, this circumstance qualifies as bad faith
registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
The Panel thus finds that Policy ¶
4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Complainant having established all three elements required to be proven under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the relief requested must be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <statefarmvpp.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: November 21, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum