national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Allstate Insurance Company v. SiteVentures, LLC

Claim Number: FA1106001391692

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Allstate Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Geri L. Haight of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., Massachusetts, USA.  Respondent is SiteVentures, LLC (“Respondent”), New Hampshire, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <allstatenh.com>, 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.

 

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 1, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on June 2, 2011.

 

On June 3, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <allstatenh.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 disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

 

On June 6, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 27, 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@allstatenh.com.  Also on June 6, 2011, 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 June 28, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (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 (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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.    Respondent’s <allstatenh.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLSTATE.COM mark.

 

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

 

3.    Respondent registered and used the <allstatenh.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

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

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a publicly held personal lines insurer in the United States, providing life, annuity, accident and health insurance. Complainant owns a trademark registration for the ALLSTATE.COM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,164,784 issued October 31, 2006).

 

Respondent, SiteVentures, LLC, registered the <allstatenh.com> domain name on May 7, 2009. The disputed domain name resolves to Respondent’s website featuring pay-per-click links advertising insurance-related services and products.

 

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 owns a trademark registration for the ALLSTATE.COM mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,164,784 issued October 31, 2006). The Panel finds that registering a mark with the USPTO provides sufficient evidence of Complainant’s rights in the mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Expedia, Inc. v. Emmerson, FA 873346 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 9, 2007) (“Complainant’s trademark registrations with the USPTO adequately demonstrate its rights in the [EXPEDIA] mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Hoffman, FA 874152 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 31, 2007) (finding that the complainant had sufficiently established rights in the SKUNK WORKS mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO). 

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <allstatenh.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLSTATE.COM mark because it consists of Complainant’s mark combined with the abbreviation for New Hampshire, “nh.” The Panel finds that adding a geographical abbreviation to Complainant’s mark fails to prevent a finding of confusing similarity according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Gannett Co. v. Chan, D2004-0117 (WIPO Apr. 8, 2004) (“…it is well established that a domain name consisting of a well-known mark, combined with a geographically descriptive term or phrase, is confusingly similar to the mark.”); see also Hess Corp. v. GR, FA 770909 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s <hess-uk.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s HESS mark, as the mere addition of “uk” and a hyphen failed to sufficiently differentiate the disputed domain name from the registered mark). The Panel determines that Respondent’s <allstatenh.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLSTATE.COM mark pursuant to Policy    ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Before the burden to demonstrate rights and legitimate interests can shift to Respondent, Complainant must put forth a prima facie case alleging Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied this obligation in the instant proceeding. Respondent, however, has not met its burden as it has not responded to the Complaint or contested Complainant’s allegations. The Panel accordingly infers that Respondent does not have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that Complainant’s allegations may be accepted as true. See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertions in this regard.”); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (“Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint functions as an implicit admission that [Respondent] lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  It also allows the Panel to accept all reasonable allegations set forth…as true.”).  The Panel will nevertheless consider the full record against the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors to make an independent determination on Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the <allstatenh.com> domain name. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “SiteVentures, LLC,” which shows no facial association with the disputed domain name. The Panel concludes, therefore, that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and consequently lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’  Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”); see also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"). 

 

Complainant contends that Respondent uses the <allstatenh.com> domain name to support a website that diverts Internet users to third-party websites offering insurance-related services that compete with Complainant. The Panel holds that such a pay-per-click directory does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or 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 Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant).

 

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

 

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant alleges that the links displayed at Respondent’s <allstatenh.com> domain name advertise insurance-related services, such as “Allstate Official Site,” “Dairyland Auto Insurance,” “Free Auto Insurance Quote,” etc. The Panel finds that advertising competing insurance services and products at a disputed domain name containing Complainant’s mark facilitates competition with Complainant and disrupts Complainant’s business, which demonstrates bad faith registration and use according to 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 St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (“This Panel concludes that by redirecting Internet users seeking information on Complainant’s educational institution to competing websites, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy      ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent includes Complainant’s ALLSTATE.COM mark in the <allstatenh.com> domain name to intentionally attract Complainant’s intending customers and create a likelihood of confusion as to the source, affiliation or sponsorship of Respondent’s resolving website. Complainant argues that Respondent uses this resolving website and disputed domain name to commercially profit as the advertised pay-per-click links generate revenue for Complainant when clicked. The Panel finds these actions indicate Respondent’s bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Dell Inc. v. Innervision Web Solutions, FA 445601 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was using the <dellcomputerssuck.com> domain name to divert Internet users to respondent’s website offering competing computer products and services); see also Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees.   Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).

 

The Panel holds 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 <allstatenh.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist

Dated:  July 12, 2011

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page