State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. iPage Hosting / Eric White
Claim Number: FA1311001528918
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Sherri Dunbar of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is iPage Hosting / Eric White (“Respondent”), Massachusetts, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <mcintyrestatefarm.com>, registered with DOMAIN.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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 7, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on November 7, 2013.
On November 8, 2013, DOMAIN.COM, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <mcintyrestatefarm.com> domain name is registered with DOMAIN.COM, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DOMAIN.COM, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the DOMAIN.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 November 8, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 29, 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@mcintyrestatefarm.com. Also on November 8, 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 December 2, 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 nationally 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 also registered versions of its mark in other countries.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name <mcintyrestatefarm.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM marks. Complainant states that it has no association with Respondent, that it has not authorized Respondent to use its mark, and that Respondent has never been known by the domain name. The disputed domain name initially resolved to a website under construction notification web page; it now resolves to an error page with no content. Complainant contends on these grounds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name 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 the surname McIntyre, Complainant’s STATE FARM mark, and the “.com” top-level domain suffix. The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Cbeyond, FA 1446683 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 16, 2012) (finding <alikhalifastatefarm.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 incorporates Complainant’s mark without authorization, and there is no evidence that the domain name has ever been used. 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. Given the distinctiveness and fame of Complainant’s mark, the Panel infers that Respondent was aware of the mark when the domain name was registered. Respondent’s specific motives for selecting the domain name are not apparent from the evidence before the Panel; it may be the case that the domain name was registered on behalf of a customer of Respondent’s web hosting services. Nonetheless, the registration is in Respondent’s name, and the Panel considers it a reasonable inference that Respondent has profited or, at least, intended to profit, from the incorporation of Complainant’s mark in the domain name, and thus that the domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. See Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith based upon opportunistic registration and passive holding of a domain name corresponding to a well-known trademark). Given the lack of any indication in the record that Respondent ever contemplated a legitimate use of the domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mcintyrestatefarm.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant..
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: December 4, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page