State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Printlogix Corporation
Claim Number: FA1203001437340
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Sherri Dunbar of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Printlogix Corporation (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarmprint.com>, 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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 30, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 30, 2012.
On April 2, 2012, GoDaddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <statefarmprint.com> 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 April 4, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 24, 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@statefarmprint.com. Also on April 4, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 30, 2012, 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, is a nationally known company that has been doing business under the name “State Farm” since 1930. Complainant engages in business in both the insurance and the financial services industry. Complainant owns a trademark registration for the STATE FARM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 1,979,585 registered June 11, 1996). Complainant owns a trademark registration for the STATE FARM INSURANCE mark with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) (Reg. No. TMA424,004 registered March 4, 1994).
Respondent, Printlogix Corporation, registered the <statefarmprint.com> domain name on January 4, 2012. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website provided by GoDaddy.com which contains numerous links for various products and companies, including insurance companies who are in direct competition with Complainant.
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."
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.
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.”).
Complainant owns trademark registrations for the STATE FARM mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,979,585 registered June 11, 1996) and trademark registrations for the STATE FARM INSURANCE mark with the CIPO (Reg. No. TMA424,004 registered March 4, 1994). Therefore, the Panel finds that such evidence indicates that Complainant has established rights in the STATE FARM and STATE FARM INSURANCE marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Morris, FA 569033 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2005) (“Complainant has established rights in the AIG mark through registration of the mark with several trademark authorities throughout the world, including the United States Patent and Trademark office (‘USPTO’)”); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
Complainant argues that the <statefarmprint.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the STATE FARM mark. The domain name contains Complainant’s entire mark, absent the space, while including the generic term “print” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Such changes and additions to Complainant’s mark are not sufficient to differentiate the domain name from the mark. The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to 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 Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See 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 UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name)
Complainant contends that Respondent is not associated with, affiliated with, or sponsored by Complainant. Further, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name identifies “Printlogix Corporation” as the registrant. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Further, Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website provided by the registrar that features various third-party links to many businesses, including other insurance companies in competition with Complainant. The Panel finds that such use of the disputed domain name 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 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 TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to generate business reflects Respondent’s bad faith registration and use. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website containing various third-party links, many of which resolve to Complainant’s competitors in the insurance industry. The finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes); see also Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”).
Further, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name which is evidence of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <statefarmprint.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 14, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page