State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Jason Boeglen / Risk XRay
Claim Number: FA1203001436895
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Jeff Saliba of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Jason Boeglen / Risk XRay (“Respondent”), North Carolina, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarmers.info>, registered with GoDaddy Software, 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.
Petter Rindforth as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 28, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 28, 2012.
On March 29, 2012, GoDaddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <statefarmers.info> domain name is registered with GoDaddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy Software, 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 March 29, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 18, 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, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@statefarmers.info. Also on March 29, 2012, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 30, 2012.
On April 12, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Petter Rindforth 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
The Complainant states that Complainant has been doing business under the name “State Farm” since 1930. Complainant engages in business in both the insurance and the financial services industry, and has established a nationally recognized presence on televised and other media.
The Complainant is the owner of a number of trademark registrations including the mark STATE FARM, such as U.S. Trademark Registration No 1,979,585 STATE FARM (word), registered on June 11, 1996. See Complainant’s Exhibit 1.
The Complainant further states that for over 70 years the Complainant has expended substantial time, effort and funds to develop the goodwill associated with the name “State Farm” as well as to promote and develop its other trademarks. Complainant does not allow unauthorized parties to use its marks as part of their Internet domain names.
The Complainant developed its Internet web presence in 1995 using the domain name statefarm.com. At its web site, the Complainant offers detailed information relating to a variety of topics that include its insurance and financial service products, consumer information, and information about its independent contractor agents.
The Complainant concludes that the disputed domain name incorporates, and is confusingly similar to, the Complainants registered trademarks, especially since the Respondents website contains insurance information.
In August 2011, it was brought to the Complainant’s attention that the disputed domain name had been registered, and linked to a web page which contains numerous links for various products and companies, including insurance companies who are in direct competition with the Complainant. On September 7, 2011, a Cease and Desist letter was sent by Complainant’s Intellectual Property Administrator via email to the Respondent. On September 7, 2011, the Respondent replied, asking if Complainant would like the domain name transferred. On September 8, 2012, Complainant advised Respondent to cancel the domain name registration or transfer it to the Complainant. On October 12, 2011, another cease and desist letter was sent to the Respondent by email; however, there was no response from the Respondent. On March 6, 2012, a cease and desist letter was sent along with a draft arbitration complaint. On March 12, 2012, Respondent replied asking for instructions on how to transfer/cancel domain name. On March 14, 2012, the Complainant advised Respondent to contact his registrar for assistance.
The Complainant states that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in <statefarmers.info>, as the Respondent is not associated with, affiliated with, or sponsored by the Complainant, the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register the domain name, and the Respondent does not possess independent intellectual property rights in the name and is not commonly known under <statefarmers.info>.
The Complainant believes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to create the impression of association with the Complainant, its agents, products, sponsorships, and services; to trade off the good will associated with the trademark; and/or to create initial interest confusion for individuals looking for information about the Complainant.
Finally, the Complainant states that the Respondent has acted in bad faith, referring to the above, as well as claiming that the Respondent’s use of <statefarmers.info> constitutes typosquatting.
B. Respondent
The Respondent agrees to the Complainant’s transfer request, stating that Respondent only purchased the disputed domain name “using a random name generator” on a certain web site. The Respondent further states that Respondent has repeatedly informed the Complainant that Respondent was willing to give up the disputed domain name, but claims that no further instructions were received.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established trademark rights in the STATE FARM trademark, as shown by Exhibit 1 of the Complaint.
The Respondent registered <statefarmers.info> on August 22, 2011.
According to Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), “a Panel shall 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 this case, the Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant.
Therefore, under these special circumstances, the Panel decides to forego the traditional UDRP analysis, not to make any further findings or discussion, and instead order an immediate transfer of the <statefarmers.info> domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
Giving the special circumstances in this case, the fact that Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <statefarmers.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Petter Rindforth, Panelist
Dated: April 14, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page