national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Steve Jones

Claim Number: FA1304001494861

PARTIES

Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company   (“Complainant”), represented by Sherri Dunbar of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA.  Respondent is Steve Jones (“Respondent”), New York, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <1-800-state-farm-insurance.com>, registered with ENOM, INC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr.,  as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 15, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 15, 2013.

 

On April 16, 2013, ENOM, INC. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <1-800-state-farm-insurance.com> domain name is registered with ENOM, INC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  ENOM, INC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the ENOM, 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 17, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 7, 2013 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@1-800-state-farm-insurance.com.  Also on April 17, 2013, 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 May 16, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr.,  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

 

  1. Complainant
    1. Complainant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, engages in business in both the insurance and financial services industry.
    2. Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the STATE FARM mark (Reg. No. 1,979,585, registered June 11, 1996) and for the STATE FARM INSURANCE mark (Reg. No. 1,125,010, registered September 11, 1979).
    3. In November of 2012, it was brought to Complainant’s attention that Complainant’s trademark STATE FARM had been registered as part of the domain name <1-800-state-farm-insurance.com>.
    4. Respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain name.

                                          i.    Respondent is not commonly known under the domain name <1-800-state-farm-insurance.com>.

                                         ii.    Respondent’s <statefarm-quote.com> initially sent individuals to a parked web page with click-through advertisements for various insurance companies/products, including some in direct competition with Complainant. At the date of this Complaint, there was no legitimate content associated with the name and no demonstrable indication that legitimate content would be forthcoming.

    1. Respondent has acted in bad faith.

                                          i.    Respondent’s use of the <1-800-state-farm-insurance.com> domain name constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business.

                                         ii.    While Respondent registered the domain name <1-800-state-farm-insurance.com> giving the impression that interested individuals will receive information regarding Complainant, the fact is individuals were initially sent to a parked web page which click-through advertisements for various insurance companies/products, including some in direct competition with Complainant.

                                        iii.    At the date of this Complaint, there was no legitimate content associated with the name and no demonstrable indication that legitimate content would be forthcoming.

                                       iv.    Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s long-term use of the trademark “State Farm.”

    1. Respondent registered its domain name on November 27, 2012.

 

 

B. Respondent

 

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

 

FINDINGS

1.    Complainant has rights in its STATE FARM mark.

2.    Respondent’s <1-800-state-farm-insurance.com> domain name is confusingly similar to complainant’s mark.

3.    Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name.

4.    Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

 

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."

 

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.”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, argues that it engages in business in both the insurance and the financial services industry. Complainant contends that it is the owner of trademark registrations with the USPTO for the STATE FARM mark (Reg. No. 1,979,585, registered June 11, 1996) and for the STATE FARM INSURANCE mark (Reg. No. 1,125,010, registered September 11, 1979). See Complainant’s Exhibit 1. The Panel notes that Respondent appears to reside within the United States. Thus, the Panel  holds that Complainant’s registration of the STATE FARM mark with the USPTO sufficiently evidences its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [Complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, Complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).

 

In November of 2012, it was brought to Complainant’s attention that Complainant’s trademark STATE FARM had been registered as part of the domain name <1-800-state-farm-insurance.com>. The Panel notes that Respondent adds the numerals “1-800” to the disputed domain name. The Panel  finds that Respondent’s addition of numerals to a domain name does not distinguish the domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that adding the suffixes "502" and "520" to the ICQ trademark does little to reduce the potential for confusion). The Panel notes that Respondent adds hyphens to the disputed domain name. The Panel determines that the addition of hyphens to a domain name does not negate confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel notes that Respondent adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the domain name. The Panel holds that the addition of a gTLD does is consequential to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Countrywide Fin. Corp. v. Johnson & Sons Sys., FA 1073019 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2007) (holding that the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” was irrelevant). Consequently, the Panel  determines that Respondent’s <1-800-state-farm-insurance.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM INSURANCE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

 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); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light.  If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by or performed business under the domain name at issue. The Panel notes that the WHOIS information identifies “Steve Jones” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. See Complainant’s Exhibit 2. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not associated with, affiliated with, or sponsored by Complainant. Complainant claims it did not authorize Respondent to register the domain name or to use the STATE FARM mark for Respondent’s business purposes. Thus, 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).

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent’s <1-800-state-farm-insurance.com> initially sent individuals to a parked web page with click-through advertisements for various insurance companies/products, including some in direct competition with Complainant. The Panel notes that Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a web page featuring competing hyperlinks titled “Farm & Ranch Insurance,” “$9 State Farm Insurance,” “Horse and Farm Insurance,” and others. See Complainant’s Exhibit 3. The Panel holds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to list competing hyperlinks is not a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods and services or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (finding that, because the “[r]espondent’s disputed domain names resolve to a website featuring a series of advertising links to various third-parties, many of whom offer products and services in direct competition with those offered under [the complainant’s] mark,” the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). Complainant argues that at the date of this Complaint, there was no legitimate content associated with the name and no demonstrable indication that legitimate content would be forthcoming. The Panel  finds that Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (“The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy  ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).

 

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of <1-800-state-farm-insurance.com> domain name constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business. The Panel  notes that Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a web page featuring competing hyperlinks titled “Cheap Auto Insurance,” “Great Car Insurance Rates,” “insurance,” and others. See Complainant’s Exhibit 3. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. v. Bigfoot Ventures LLC, FA 1195961 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2008) (“Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a parking website which provides click through revenue to Respondent and which displays links to travel-related products and services that directly compete with Complainant’s business. Accordingly, Respondent’s competing use of the disputed domain name is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent’s <1-800-state-farm-insurance.com>.  initially sent individuals to a parked web page with click-through advertisements for various insurance companies/products, including some in direct competition with Complainant. The Panel notes that Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a web page featuring competing hyperlinks titled “Auto Insurance,” “Farm & Ranch Insurance,” “$9 State Farm Insurance,” and others. See Complainant’s Exhibit 3. The Panel holds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to display competing hyperlinks evidences bad faith use and registration pursuant to 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).

 

Complainant argues that at the date of this Complainant, there was no legitimate content associated with the name and no demonstrable indication that legitimate content would be forthcoming. Complainant claims that even if Respondent did put information on its website, its content along with the proposed domain name, would be in direct conflict with information Complainant already provides and would cause confusion to potential customers. The Panel finds that Respondent has failed to make an active use of the website, demonstrating bad faith use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Sech, FA 893427 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make active use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated that the respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith).

 

Complainant claims that Respondent knew of should have known of Complainant’s long-term use of the trademark “State Farm.” Complainant argues that Respondent registered its domain name on November 27, 2012. See Complainant’s Exhibit 2. Complainant contends that it registered its domain name “statefarm.com” on May 24, 1995. See Complainant’s Exhibit 5. While panels have concluded that constructive notice is not sufficient to support a bad faith finding, the Panel finds that, due to Complainant's long-term use of the STATE FARM mark, Respondent had actual knowledge of the mark and Complainant's rights. Thus, the Panel holds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See The Way Int'l, Inc. v. Diamond Peters, D2003-0264 (WIPO May 29, 2003) ("As to constructive knowledge, the Panel takes the view that there is no place for such a concept under the Policy."); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration).

 

 

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 <1-800-state-farm-insurance.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist

Dated:  May 30, 2013

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page