national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Alpoe Business Service a/k/a Anthony Previte

Claim Number: FA1009001347067

 

PARTIES

Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("Complainant"), represented by Debra J. Smith of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA.  Respondent is Alpoe Business Services a/k/a Anthony Previte ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <statefarmblog.com>, <statefarmgame.com>, and <statefarmgame.mobi>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 17, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on September 17, 2010.

 

On September 17, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <statefarmblog.com>, <statefarmgame.com>, and <statefarmgame.mobi> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

 

On September 20, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 12, 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@statefarmblog.com, postmaster@statefarmgame.com, and postmaster@statefarmgame.mobi.  Also on September 20, 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 October 21, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin

 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <statefarmblog.com>, <statefarmgame.com>, and <statefarmgame.mobi> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarmblog.com>, <statefarmgame.com>, and <statefarmgame.mobi> domain names.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <statefarmblog.com>, <statefarmgame.com>, and <statefarmgame.mobi> domain names in bad faith.

 

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

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, is an international provider of insurance and financial services that has been in operation since 1930 in the United States.  Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for its STATE FARM mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,979,585 issued June 11, 1996). 

 

Respondent, Alpoe Business Service a/k/a Anthony Previte, registered the <statefarmblog.com> domain name on July 22, 2010 and the <statefarmgame.com>, and <statefarmgame.mobi> domain names on July 30, 2010.  Respondent’s <statefarmblog.com> domain name resolves to a website that displays “Welcome to Yarr!” and includes hyperlinks to register or log in to the website.  Respondent’s <statefarmgame.mobi> domain name resolves to a parked website that contains no active content.  Respondent’s <statefarmgame.com> domain name resolves to a parked website with the registrar that displays various third-party links to competing insurance companies.

 

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

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to establish rights in its STATE FARM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through proof of its trademark registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,979,585 issued June 11, 1996).  See 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).”); 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).

 

The Panel finds that the <statefarmblog.com>, <statefarmgame.com>, and <statefarmgame.mobi> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  The Panel notes that each domain name contains Complainant’s entire STATE FARM mark, absent the impermissible space between the terms of the mark, while adding the generic terms “game” or “blog,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” or “.mobi.”  The Panel finds that such additions to Complainant’s mark do not render the domain names distinct from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “spaces are impermissible and a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names.  Therefore, the panel finds that the disputed domain name [<americangenerallifeinsurance.com>] is confusingly similar to the complainant’s [AMERICAN GENERAL] mark.”); see also Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”).

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not possess rights and legitimate interests in the <statefarmblog.com>, <statefarmgame.com>, and <statefarmgame.mobi> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  Complainant is required to produce a prima facie case in support of these allegations.  Once Complainant has produced a prima facie case the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to display that it does possess rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (finding that if the complainant satisfies its prima facie burden, “then the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names.”); see also 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).  The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <statefarmblog.com>, <statefarmgame.com>, and <statefarmgame.mobi> domain names.  Respondent has failed to respond to these proceedings, and as such the Panel finds that it may infer that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“[Rule 14(b)] expressly provide[s] that the Panel ‘shall draw such inferences’ from the Respondent’s failure to comply with the rules ‘as it considers appropriate.”).  However, the Panel will analyze the evidence on record to determine whether Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c). 

 

Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the <statefarmblog.com>, <statefarmgame.com>, and <statefarmgame.mobi> domain names.  The WHOIS information for each domain name identifies “Alpoe Business Service a/k/a Anthony Previte” as the registrant.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Am. Online, Inc. v. World Photo Video & Imaging Corp., FA 109031 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 13, 2002) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by <aolcamera.com> or <aolcameras.com> because the respondent was doing business as “Sunset Camera” and “World Photo Video & Imaging Corp.”); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”).

 

Complainant contends, and submits screen-shot evidence to show, that Respondent’s <statefarmblog.com> resolves to an otherwise blank website that displays “Welcome to Yarr!” and hyperlinks to register or log in to the website.  Further, Complainant submits evidence to show that Respondent’s <statefarmgame.mobi> domain name also resolves to a blank website.  Complainant contends that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in reference to such usage of the confusingly similar domain names.  The Panel finds that Respondent has failed to make an active use of the <statefarmblog.com> and <statefarmgame.mobi> domain names, and such use is 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 Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also 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)).

 

Complainant further argues that Respondent’s <statefarmgame.com> domain name resolves to the registrar’s website as a parked website that contains various third-party links to competing insurance companies.  Complainant argues that using the disputed domain name to generate business revenue in this fashion is evidence that Respondent does not have rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.  The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use of the <statefarmgame.com> domain name is evidence that Respondent is not using the domain name for 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 Charles Letts & Co Ltd. v. Citipublications, FA 692150 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s parking of a domain name containing the complainant’s mark for the respondent’s commercial gain did not satisfy Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host a series of hyperlinks and a banner advertisement was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name).

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant contends that Respondent’s <statefarmgame.com> domain name resolves to a parked website that displays third-party links to competing insurance companies.  The Panel infers that such use results in a loss or diversion of Complainant’s business online, and that such use is evidence of 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 David Hall Rare Coins v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 915206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because respondent used the disputed domain name to advertise goods and services of complainant’s competitors, thereby disrupting the complainant’s business).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent receives or generates business revenue from its use of the <statefarmgame.com> domain name.  Complainant argues that Respondent receives click-through or affiliate fees from the competing insurance companies that are advertised on Complainant’s parked website.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to display third-party links to Complainant’s competitors in the insurance industry, presumably for financial gain, is evidence of bad faith registration and use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also 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)).

The Panel notes that the examples of bad faith registration and use prescribed in Policy ¶ 4(b) are intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive.  See Digi Int’l Inc. v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth certain circumstances, without limitation, that shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith)   Thus, the Panel may find bad faith beyond the perimeters of Policy ¶ 4(b).  See CBS Broad., Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (“[T]he Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence that a domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith”).    

Lastly, Complainant argues that Respondent has not associated active content with the <statefarmblog.com> and <statefarmgame.mobi> domain names, and that such failure to make an active use or to offer evidence of demonstrable preparations of such use is evidence of bad faith registration and use.  The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s failure to connect the <statefarmblog.com> and <statefarmgame.mobi> domain names with active websites is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Sech, FA 893427 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make active use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated that the respondent registered the disputed domain name 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 <statefarmblog.com>, <statefarmgame.com>, and <statefarmgame.mobi> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist

Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)

 

Dated:  October 29, 2010

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page