national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Kurt Kawohl

Claim Number: FA0911001292722

 

PARTIES

Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Debra J. Monke, of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA.  Respondent is Kurt Kawohl (“Respondent”), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <statefarm.asia>, registered with CORE.

 

PANEL

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 3, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 4, 2009.

 

On November 4, 2009, CORE confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <statefarm.asia> domain name is registered with CORE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  CORE has verified that Respondent is bound by the CORE 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 5, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 25, 2009 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@statefarm.asia by e-mail.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On December 5, 2009, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <statefarm.asia> domain name is identical to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarm.asia> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <statefarm.asia> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 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 <statefarm.asia> domain name on September 3, 2009.  Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a blank webpage.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant obtained a trademark registration for the STATE FARM mark with the USPTO on June 11, 1996 (Reg. No. 1,979,585).  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 Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent’s <statefarm.asia> domain name is identical to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  Respondent’s disputed domain name contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety, omits a space between the terms, and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.asia.”  The Panel finds that the omission of a space between terms and the addition of a gTLD are irrelevant in creating a distinct characteristic in a disputed domain name.  See Reichert, Inc. v. Leonard, FA 672010 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 24, 2006) (“The disputed domain names are identical to Complainant’s mark, but for the addition of a generic top-level domain suffix (“.com” or “.net”)…”); see also George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that eliminating the space between terms of a mark still rendered the <gwbakeries.mobi> domain name identical to the complainant’s GW BAKERIES mark).  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <statefarm.asia> domain name is identical to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  If Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that its rights and legitimate interests exist pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case and Respondent has failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.  See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  The relevant WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Kurt Kawohl” and there is no evidence in the record to suggest that Respondent is otherwise commonly known by 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 Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. 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 disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has failed to make an active use of the disputed domain name indicated by the blank webpage displayed on the resolving website.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or in a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Broadcom Corp. v. Wirth, FA 102713 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to display an “under construction” page did not constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website.  The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy  ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

The Panel concludes that the scenarios listed under Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive, and that it may consider additional circumstances in determining whether or not Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.  See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“[T]he examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b) are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive.”); see also Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (“The requirement in the ICANN Policy that a complainant prove that domain names are being used in bad faith does not require that it prove in every instance that a respondent is taking positive action. Use in bad faith can be inferred from the totality of the circumstances even when the registrant has done nothing more than register the names.”).

 

Respondent has failed to put forth any evidence of its intent to use the disputed domain name.  The disputed domain name remains constructively unutilized, displaying a blank page on the resolving website.  Accordingly, the Panel finds this inactive use of the disputed domain name to establish that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (“[I]t is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith.”); see also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <statefarm.asia> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist

Dated:  December 21, 2009

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum