State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Jason Glascock
Claim Number: FA1309001521420
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Jason Glascock (“Respondent”), North Carolina, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <jakefromstatefarm.biz>, <jakefromstatefarm.net>, <jakefromstatefarm.org>, <jakefromstatefarm.info>, and <jake-from-state-farm.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 25, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on September 25, 2013.
On September 25, 2013, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <jakefromstatefarm.biz>, <jakefromstatefarm.net>, <jakefromstatefarm.org>, <jakefromstatefarm.info>, and <jake-from-state-farm.com> domain names 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 September 26, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 16, 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@jakefromstatefarm.biz, postmaster@jakefromstatefarm.net, postmaster@jakefromstatefarm.org, postmaster@jakefromstatefarm.info, postmaster@jake-from-state-farm.com. Also on September 26, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on October 15, 2013.
On October 16, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
Complainant uses the STATE FARM mark to provide banking, insurance, and financial services, and has used that mark since 1930. Complainant registered the STATE FARM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (e.g., Reg. No. 1,979,585 registered on June 11, 1996).
Respondent registered the <jakefromstatefarm.biz>, <jakefromstatefarm.net>, <jakefromstatefarm.org>, <jakefromstatefarm.info>, and <jake-from-state-farm.com> domain names, all of which feature the predominant STATE FARM mark and are confusingly similar to the STATE FARM mark.
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
Respondent is not affiliated or associated with Complainant in any way, and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to make use of the STATE FARM mark in domain names.
Respondent is not commonly known by any of these domain names in any way.
Respondent uses the domain names to send Internet users to parked websites wherein competing insurance firms are promoted alongside other unrelated commercial businesses.
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
Respondent is offering competing services in the form of hyperlink advertisements viewable through the disputed domain names’ websites.
Respondent capitalizes on the likelihood that Internet users will believe these domain names are associated with Complainant.
Respondent knows or should have known of Complainant’s interests in the STATE FARM mark when he registered the disputed domain names.
Respondent registered all of the disputed domain names on October 14, 2012.
B. Respondent
The disputed domain names are inactive and Respondent is calling the registrar to make sure they are all cancelled.
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 this case, however, the Respondent has not disputed any of the factual allegations in the Complaint, nor has he contested the relief sought. Instead he states that the domain names are inactive and says he intends to have them cancelled. Under these circumstances the Panel decides to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the domain names. 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.”); 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.”).
Although the Respondent in this case has not explicitly consented to or requested a transfer of the domain names, he has clearly and unequivocally stated his intent to abandon or disclaim any interest he may have in them. The Panel finds that this is sufficient to evidence his consent to such transfer.
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <jakefromstatefarm.biz>, <jakefromstatefarm.net>, <jakefromstatefarm.org>, <jakefromstatefarm.info>, and <jake-from-state-farm.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist
Dated: October 28, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page