national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Lenee Dahl

Claim Number: FA1202001429990

 

PARTIES

Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA.  Respondent is Lenee Dahl (“Respondent”), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC, are <statefarminsuranceblog.com>, <statefarminsurancesite.com>, and <statefarmprotection.com>,.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electron-ically on February 16, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on February 16, 2012.

 

On February 17, 2012, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain names <statefarminsuranceblog.com>, <statefarminsurancesite.com>, and <statefarmprotection.com> are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 February 22, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, in-cluding a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 13, 2012 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, adminis-trative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@statefarminsuranceblog.com, postmaster@statefarminsurancesite.com, and postmaster@statefarmpro-tection.com.  Also on February 22, 2012, 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 March 21, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard 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

 

Complainant owns trademark registrations for the STATE FARM mark, on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (including Reg. No. 1,979,585, registered June 11, 1996) and STATE FARM INSUR-ANCE mark (including Reg. No. 1,125,010 registered September 11, 1979). 

 

Complainant has used the STATE FARM marks since 1930 to market insurance and financial services.

 

Respondent registered each of the <statefarminsuranceblog.com>, <statefarm-insurancesite.com>, and <statefarmprotection.com> domain names on Novem-ber 25, 2011.

Respondent’s domain names resolve to parked websites featuring third-party links, some of which resolve to other websites operating in competition with the business of Complainant.

 

The same websites display an offer to sell the disputed domain names. 

 

Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the domain names.

 

Respondent both registered and is using the domain names in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

 

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.  However, in an e-mail message addressed to the National Arbitration forum, Respondent has recited, among other things, as follows: 

 

If you really want these back, all you need to do is ask me to remove them….  I hope this can be resolved with me just re-      moving the domains.  

 

DISCUSSION

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following in order to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred:

 

i.      the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;

ii.     Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the do-main name; and

iii.    the domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.

 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accord-ance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”  Further, Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that, where a party fails to comply with requirements laid on by the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from that failure as it considers appropriate.   

 

It appears from the record that Respondent does not contest the material alle-gations of the Complaint.  It further appears that Respondent does not object to Complainant’s request for the transfer to it of the subject domain names as re-quested in the Complaint, so that the parties have tacitly agreed to the transfer of the subject domain names from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings.  In these exceptional circumstances, we conclude that no worthwhile purpose would be served by a rendition of the findings otherwise customary in proceedings of this sort. 

 

DECISION

 

Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered that the <statefarminsuranceblog.com>, <statefarminsurancesite.com>, and <statefarmprotection.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Terry F. Peppard, Panelist

Dated:  April 4, 2012

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page