State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. HDC Holdings LLC c/o David Harris
Claim Number: FA1004001317327
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 <statefarminsuranceagentdanielleleonard.info>, 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.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 5, 2010.
On April 5, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <statefarminsuranceagentdanielleleonard.info> 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 April 6, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 26, 2010 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@statefarminsuranceagentdanielleleonard.info by e-mail. Also on April 6, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 30, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (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 "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of a Written Notice, as defined in Rule 1. 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 <statefarminsuranceagentdanielleleonard.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM INSURANCE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarminsuranceagentdanielleleonard.info> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <statefarminsuranceagentdanielleleonard.info> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, offers insurance and financial services. Complainant has operated under its STATE FARM INSURANCE mark since 1930. Complainant holds multiple trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for its STATE FARM INSURANCE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,125,010 issued September 11, 1979).
Respondent registered the <statefarminsuranceagentdanielleleonard.info> domain name on January 21, 2010. The disputed domain name resolves to a third-party website at <zipweb.com> that provides information about one of Complainant’s independent agents without Complainant’s or the independent agent’s knowledge or consent.
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.
Complainant holds trademark registrations with the USPTO for
its STATE FARM INSURANCE mark (e.g.,
Reg. No. 1,125,010 issued September 11, 1979).
The Panel holds that Complainant’s trademark registrations with the
USPTO are sufficient to establish rights in Complainant’s STATE FARM INSURANCE
mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Miller Brewing
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <statefarminsuranceagentdanielleleonard.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM INSURANCE mark. Complainant claims that the disputed domain name removes the spaces separating Complainant’s mark and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.info.” Complainant further contends that Respondent adds the descriptive terms “agent,” “danielle,” and “leonard,” which all describe Complainant’s insurance business by referencing an independent agent of Complainant. The Panel determines the removal of spaces, the addition of descriptive terms, and the inclusion of a gTLD all fail to adequately distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See U.S. News & World Report, Inc. v. Zhongqi, FA 917070 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (“Elimination of punctuation and the space between the words of Complainant’s mark, as well as the addition of a gTLD does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding that the addition of the generic term “finance,” which described the complainant’s financial services business, as well as a gTLD, did not sufficiently distinguish the respondent’s disputed domain name from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); 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.”). Consequently, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <statefarminsuranceagentdanielleleonard.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM INSURANCE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <statefarminsuranceagentdanielleleonard.info> domain name. Previous panels have found that when a complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant has made a prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Collazo, FA 349074 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (finding that because the respondent failed to submit a Response, “Complainant’s submission has gone unopposed and its arguments undisputed. In the absence of a Response, the Panel accepts as true all reasonable allegations . . . unless clearly contradicted by the evidence.”).
Respondent has failed to provide any evidence, and the Panel has failed to find any evidence in the record, that would support a finding that Respondent is commonly known by the <statefarminsuranceagentdanielleleonard.info> domain name. The WHOIS information identifies the domain name registrant as “HDC Holdings LLC c/o David Harris,” which the Panel decides is not similar to the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s STATE FARM INSURANCE mark and that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant or any of Complainant’s insurance agents. Accordingly, the Panel determines that Respondent is not commonly known by the <statefarminsuranceagentdanielleleonard.info> 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 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).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <statefarminsuranceagentdanielleleonard.info> domain name resolves to a third-party website, <zipwebb.com>, which features information regarding an independent agent of Complainant’s. Complainant claims that Respondent is not authorized by Complainant or Complainant’s independent agent to provide this information. Complainant alleges that Respondent benefits in some way from its use of the disputed domain name. The Panel concludes that Respondent’s use of the <statefarminsuranceagentdanielleleonard.info> domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial use of the disputed domain name 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 Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute either 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 Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent uses the <statefarminsuranceagentdanielleleonard.info> domain name to resolve to a third-party website at <zipwebb.com> that provides information about an independent agent of Complainant. Complainant and the independent agent have not authorized Respondent to provide this information or use Complainant’s STATE FARM INSURANCE mark. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business because Complainant does not have control over information provided about one of its agents. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business, which constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Mission KwaSizabantu v. Rost, D2000-0279 (WIPO June 7, 2000) (defining “competitor” as “one who acts in opposition to another and the context does not imply or demand any restricted meaning such as commercial or business competitor”); see also Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate websites that compete with the complainant’s business).
The Panel infers that Respondent profits in some way from its use of the <statefarminsuranceagentdanielleleonard.info> domain name to resolve to an information website about one of Complainant’s independent agents. Internet users interested in Complainant may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with and sponsorship of the disputed domain name and resolving website. The Panel concludes that Respondent’s use of the <statefarminsuranceagentdanielleleonard.info> domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent took advantage of the confusing similarity between the <theotheraol.com> and <theotheraol.net> domain names and the complainant’s AOL mark, which indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
The Panel finds 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 <statefarminsuranceagentdanielleleonard.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 10, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum