State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Hildegard Gruener
Claim Number: FA1309001521506
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Sherri Dunbar of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Hildegard Gruener (“Respondent”), Austria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarm-com.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 26, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on September 26, 2013.
On September 26, 2013, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <statefarm-com.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 27, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 17, 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@statefarm-com.com. Also on September 27, 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 October 22, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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
Complainant is a well-known company engaged in the insurance and financial services industries. Complainant began using the STATE FARM mark in 1930. Complainant’s marks registered in the United States include STATE FARM (registered in 1996) and others; Complainant has obtained similar trademark registrations in Canada, Mexico, and the European Community.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name <statefarm-com.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM marks. Complainant states that it has not authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s mark in a domain name or otherwise, and asserts that Respondent is not known by the domain name. The domain name previously directed users to a web page containing links to various insurance companies and products, including those in direct competition with Complainant; the web page later was changed to display information about Complainant and other insurance companies. Complainant alleges that neither of these uses constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. On these grounds Complainant contends that Complainant lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant further alleges that Respondent intends the domain name to attract individuals seeking information about Complainant and to create customer confusion as to the source or sponsorship of Respondent’s website. Complainant characterizes Respondent’s use of the domain name as typosquatting. Complainant contends on these and other grounds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
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.”).
The disputed domain name is comprised of Complainant’s registered STATE FARM mark, with “-com” and the top-level domain “.com” appended thereto. The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Domain Master, FA 335440 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 15, 2004) (finding <statefarmcom.com> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. PrivacyProtect.org / Domain Admin, FA 1461141 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2012) (finding <comstatefarm.com> confusingly similar to STATE FARM).
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, as discussed supra, and the only apparent use of the domain name is in connection with a website seemingly calculated to create and exploit confusion among Internet users and infringe upon Complainant’s marks. Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that “by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service
on [Respondent’s] web site or location.”
Respondent’s use of the domain name for a website containing links to Complainant’s competitors, presumably generating clickthrough or referral fees for Respondent, is indicative of bad faith use under the Policy. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. PrivacyProtect.org / Domain Admin, supra. ; OneWest Bank, FSB v. Hildegard Gruener, FA 1482946 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 20, 2013). Absent any evidence that the domain name was registered for a different purpose, the Panel infers that the name was registered in bad faith as well.
Having considered all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <statefarm-com.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: October 22, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page