Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (formerly known as Esurance Inc.) v. Rampe Purda
Claim Number: FA1012001363903
Complainant is Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (formerly known as Esurance Inc.) (“Complainant”), represented by Alias Encore, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Rampe Purda (“Respondent”), Finland.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <esurace.com>, registered with HEBEI GUOJI MAOYI (SHANGHAI) LTD d/b/a HEBEIDOMAINS.COM.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 16, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 16, 2010. The Complaint was submitted in both Finnish and English.
On December 20, 2010, HEBEI GUOJI MAOYI (SHANGHAI) LTD d/b/a HEBEIDOMAINS.COM confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <esurace.com> domain name is registered with HEBEI GUOJI MAOYI (SHANGHAI) LTD d/b/a HEBEIDOMAINS.COM and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HEBEI GUOJI MAOYI (SHANGHAI) LTD d/b/a HEBEIDOMAINS.COM has verified that Respondent is bound by the HEBEI GUOJI MAOYI (SHANGHAI) LTD d/b/a HEBEIDOMAINS.COM 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 January 5, 2011, the Forum served the Finnish language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Finnish language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 25, 2011 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@esurace.com. Also on January 5, 2011, the Finnish language 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 January 27, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 a response from Respondent.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Finnish language Complaint and Commencement Notification and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <esurace.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ESURANCE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <esurace.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <esurace.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant provides auto insurance directly to consumers online and through select online agents. Complainant uses the ESURANCE mark in connection with its insurance services. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the ESURANCE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,708,357 issued April 22, 2003).
Respondent, Rampe Purda, registered the <esurace.com> domain name on June 18, 2010. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that lists hyperlinks to third-party websites, some of which compete with Complainant’s insurance business.
Complainant submits evidence that Respondent has a history of registering domain names that infringe upon the trademark rights of others and has been ordered by previous UDRP panels to transfer the disputed domain names to the respective complainants. See AOL Inc. v. Rampe Purda, FA 1330828 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 29, 2010); see also The Finish Line, Inc. v. Rampe Purda, FA 1359383 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 27, 2010); see also Travelocity.com LP v. Rampe Purda, FA 1343690 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2010).
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 trademark registrations sufficiently prove Complainant’s rights in the ESURANCE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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). The Panel also finds that Complainant need not hold a trademark registration with the trademark authority in the country in which Respondent resides. See Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence).
Respondent’s <esurace.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its ESURANCE mark. In the disputed domain name, Respondent omits the letter “n” from Complainant’s mark and then attaches the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds these slight alterations do not negate a finding of confusingly similar. See Pfizer Inc. v. BargainName.com, D2005-0299 (WIPO Apr. 28, 2005) (holding that the <pfzer.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s PFIZER mark, as the respondent simply omitted the letter “i”); see also Hallelujah Acres, Inc. v. Manila Indus., Inc., FA 805029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 15, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s <hacrs.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s HACRES mark because it omitted the letter “e” from the mark and added the generic top-level domain “.com”); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark). Thus, the Panel holds that Respondent’s <esurace.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ESURANCE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case showing Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <esurace.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The burden then shifts to Respondent to prove it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel may view Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests. 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 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.”). Despite Respondent’s failure to respond, the Panel will evaluate the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant asserts that it is not affiliated with Respondent in any way nor has it given Respondent permission to use its ESURANCE mark in a domain name. Additionally, the WHOIS information lists “Rampe Purda” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, which the Panel finds is not similar to the <esurace.com> domain name. With no evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that Complainant’s assertions and the WHOIS registrant information support a finding that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under 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 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).
Complainant alleges the <esurace.com> domain name resolves to a website that provides hyperlinks to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant’s insurance business. A screen shot of the resolving website shows a list of hyperlinks with titles like “Liberty Mutual Insurance,” “Free Auto Insurance Quote,” “Auto Insurance Quotes,” and “Top Sites for Car Insurance.” The Panel presumes that Respondent profits from its use of the disputed domain name through the receipt of pay-per-click fees. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the <esurace.com> domain name to make 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 Meyerson v. Speedy Web, FA 960409 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2007) (finding that where a respondent has failed to offer any goods or services on its website other than links to a variety of third-party websites, it was not using a domain name in connection with 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)).
Complainant argues that Respondent uses the <esurace.com> domain name to engage in typosquatting by omitting the letter “n” from Complainant’s ESURANCE, creating a common misspelling of the mark. The Panel finds that Respondent’s typosquatting provides additional evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <esurace.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (concluding that by registering the <microssoft.com> domain name, the respondent had “engaged in typosquatting, which provides additional evidence that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also LTD Commodities LLC v. Party Night, Inc., FA 165155 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2003) (finding that the <ltdcommadities.com>, <ltdcommmodities.com>, and <ltdcommodaties.com> domain names were intentional misspellings of Complainant's LTD COMMODITIES mark and this “‘typosquatting’ is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent has been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings, wherein the disputed domain names were ordered to be transferred from Respondent to the respective complainants in those cases. See AOL Inc. v. Rampe Purda, FA 1330828 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 29, 2010); see also The Finish Line, Inc. v. Rampe Purda, FA 1359383 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 27, 2010); see also Travelocity.com LP v. Rampe Purda, FA 1343690 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2010). Based on the evidence in the record, the Panel concludes that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use under the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Arai Helmet Am., Inc. v. Goldmark, D2004-1028 (WIPO Jan. 22, 2005 (finding that “Respondent has registered the disputed domain name, <aria.com>, to prevent Complainant from registering it” and taking notice of another Policy proceeding against the respondent to find that “this is part of a pattern of such registrations”); see also Westcoast Contempo Fashions Ltd. v. Manila Indus., Inc., FA 814312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been the subject of numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants).
The Panel also finds that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users seeking Complainant’s insurance services to a website that provides hyperlinks to Complainant’s competitors. Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent’s domain name disrupts Complainant’s business, which constitutes registration and use in bad faith 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 Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent used the disputed domain name to operate a commercial search engine with links to the complainant’s competitors).
Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s site. The Panel presumes that Respondent profits from its use of the disputed domain name through the receipt of pay-per-click fees. Consequently, the Panel finds registration and use in bad faith 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 MySpace, Inc. v. Myspace Bot, FA 672161 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2006) (holding that the respondent registered and used the <myspacebot.com> domain name in bad faith by diverting Internet users seeking the complainant’s website to its own website for commercial gain because the respondent likely profited from this diversion scheme).
Finally, the Panel holds that Respondent’s typosquatting provides additional evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. IQ Mgmt. Corp., FA 328127 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 28, 2004) (“By engaging in typosquatting, [r]espondent has registered and used the <vangard.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball League, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … is the intentional misspelling of words with [the] intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <esurace.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: February 4, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page