State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Barbara Crager c/o PrivateRegContact Admin
Claim Number: FA0811001232440
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 <statefarmsfinancial.net>, registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide.
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.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 4, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 4, 2008.
On November 6, 2008, Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <statefarmsfinancial.net> domain name is registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide has verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide 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 November 12, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 2, 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@statefarmsfinancial.net by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 9, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Harold Kaline (Ret.) 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 <statefarmsfinancial.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarmsfinancial.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <statefarmsfinancial.net> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, is a nationally recognized automobile
insurance company. Complainant also provides financial services such as banking
and fund investments. Complainant began
using the STATE FARM mark in 1930, eventually registering it with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on June 11, 1996 (Reg. No.
1,979,585), and other governmental trademark authorities worldwide.
Respondent registered the
<statefarmsfinancial.net>
domain name on May 14, 2008. The
disputed domain name routes Internet users to a different website that purports
to be a “how to design your own web page” website.
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’s multiple registrations with the USPTO and other governmental trademark authorities worldwide are sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights in its STATE FARM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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.”); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”).
The <statefarmsfinancial.net>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(i). The
disputed domain name incorporates the entire mark. The addition of “s” and the generic term
“financial” to Complainant’s mark does not sufficiently distinguish the
disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark.
The addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.net” does not
negate the confusingly similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Nat’l Geographic Soc’y v. Stoneybrook Invs.,
FA 96263 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2001) (finding that the domain name
<nationalgeographics.com> was confusingly similar to the complainant’s
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC mark); see also Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to the Respondent to prove it has legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case. See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“[I]t 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.”); see also 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).”).
Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel will determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c). The Panel may accept the allegations and inferences in the Compliant as true unless clearly contradicted. See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertions in this regard.”); 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.”).
The <statefarmsfinancial.net>
disputed domain name resolves to an unrelated website. The website describes how to set up a web
page. Respondent is exploiting the
national recognition of Complainant’s STATE FARM mark to redirect confused
consumers to this website where there is no content related to financial or
insurance services. The Panel finds that
Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See eBay Inc. v. Hong, D2000-1633
(WIPO Jan. 18, 2001) (stating that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s
entire mark in domain names makes it difficult to infer a legitimate use); see also 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).”).
The Panel finds no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Barbara Crager c/o PrivateRegContact Admin.” Without further evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <statefarmsfinancial.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: December 22, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum