State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Sevren Maynard
Claim Number: FA0912001300089
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 <statefarmlive.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.
Louis E. Condon as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 22, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 23, 2009.
On December 22, 2009, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <statefarmlive.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 January 6, 2010, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 26, 2010 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@statefarmlive.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 2, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon 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 <statefarmlive.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarmlive.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <statefarmlive.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, has used the STATE FARM mark in connection
with its business in the insurance and financial services industries since
1930. Complainant holds several
registrations of the STATE FARM mark with various governmental trademark
authorities throughout the world, including the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g.,
Reg. No. 1,979,585 issued June 11, 1996).
Respondent, Sevren Maynard, registered the <statefarmlive.com> domain name on February 19, 2009. The disputed domain resolves to a website that displays hyperlinks to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant.
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 under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registrations with various governmental trademark authorities throughout the world, including the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,979,585 issued June 11, 1996). See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world); see also Morgan Stanley v. Fitz-James, FA 571918 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2005) (finding from a preponderance of the evidence that the complainant had registered its mark with national trademark authorities, the Panel determined that “such registrations present a prima facie case of Complainant’s rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <statefarmlive.com> domain name contains Complainant’s entire STATE FARM mark, deletes the space within the mark, adds the generic term “live,” and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that none of these alterations to Complainant’s mark sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that the <statefarmlive.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the STATE FARM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Oki Data Ams., Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001) (“[T]he fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identity [sic] or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks”); see also Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. Rana, FA 304696 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2004) (finding that the addition of the generic term “collection” to Complainant’s HARRY POTTER mark failed to distinguish the domain name from the mark); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
has been satisfied.
Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant makes this showing, the burden then shifts to Respondent and Respondent must establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently made its prima facie showing under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The burden now shifts to Respondent, from whom no response was received. See Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that once a prima facie case has been established by the complainant, the burden then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)); 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).”). Although Respondent has not alleged that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel elects to examine the record under Policy ¶ 4(c).
The WHOIS information for the <statefarmlive.com> domain name lists “Sevren Maynard” as the registrant, which does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has not offered any evidence to suggest that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) applies in this case. Moreover, Complainant asserts that it has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the STATE FARM mark. Therfore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <statefarmlive.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record); see also IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s <statefarmlive.com> domain name resolves to a website that displays hyperlinks to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant’s insurance services business. The Panel presumes that Respondent receives click-through fees from these hyperlinks. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in this manner 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). See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was 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 also ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. Albloushi, FA 888651 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 26, 2007) (rejecting the respondent’s contention of rights and legitimate interests in the <bravoclub.com> domain name because the respondent was merely using the domain name to operate a website containing links to various competing commercial websites, which the panel did not find to be a use 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)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Since Respondent registered the <statefarmlive.com> domain name on February 19, 2009, the
disputed domain name has resolved to a website featuring competing
hyperlinks. The Panel finds that
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s
business. The Panel further finds that
such a disruption constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb.
13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract
Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the
websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and
use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see
also Am. Airlines, Inc. v.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s confusingly similar <statefarmlive.com> domain name
creates a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the
disputed domain name. The Panel further
finds that Respondent is commercially gaining from this likelihood of confusion
through its presumed receipt of click-through fees, which constitutes bad faith
registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See T-Mobile USA, Inc.
v. utahhealth, FA 697821 (Nat. Arb. Forum
June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of a domain name
confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a
commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other
revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also
The Panel finds that
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <statefarmlive.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated: February 15, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum