State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Kurt W
Claim Number: FA1401001539953
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Sherri Dunbar of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Kurt W (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarmlogin.com>, registered with Todaynic.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 20, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on January 20, 2014.
On January 22, 2014, Todaynic.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <statefarmlogin.com> domain name is registered with Todaynic.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Todaynic.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Todaynic.com, 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 January 23, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 12, 2014 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@statefarmlogin.com. Also on January 23, 2014, 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 February 14, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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
State Farm Trademark Rights to the Name “State Farm” and “State Farm Insurance”
State Farm is a nationally known company that has been doing business under the name “State Farm” since 1930. In 1999 State Farm opened a Federally Chartered Bank known as State Farm Bank. State Farm engages in business in both the insurance and the financial services industry. State Farm also has established a nationally recognized presence on televised and other media.
State Farm first began using the “State Farm” trademark in 1930 and registered it with the Patent and Trademark Office on June 11, 1996 and registered “State Farm Insurance” on September 11, 1979. State Farm has also registered with the Patent and Trademark Office the following marks that all include the phrase “State Farm” including, but not limited to,:
the State Farm Insurance 3 oval logo; State Farm, State Farm Bank, State Farm Bank logo, State Farm Bayou Classic, State Farm Catastrophe Services, State Farm Companies Foundation, State Farm Mutual Funds, State Farm Dollars, State Farm Green Space, State Farm Red Magazine
In Canada State Farm has registered the State Farm 3 oval logo; State Farm; State Farm Companies Foundation; State Farm Insurance, StateFarm.com, StateFarm.ca, and others. In the European Community State Farm and the State Farm 3 oval logo is registered. In Mexico the State Farm 3 oval logo, State Farm and State Farm Insurance are registered. The domain name registered by the Respondent incorporates the State Farm registered trademark, “State Farm” and is confusingly similar to State Farm registered marks.
For over 70 years State Farm has expended substantial time, effort and funds to develop the good will associated with the name “State Farm” as well as to promote and develop its other trademarks. State Farm does not allow unauthorized parties to use its marks as part of their Internet domain names.
State Farm on the Internet
State Farm developed its Internet web presence in 1995 using the domain name statefarm.com. At its web site, State Farm offers detailed information relating to a variety of topics that include its insurance and financial service products, consumer information, and information about its independent contractor agents. State Farm has expanded substantial time, effort and funds to develop its web site as a primary source of Internet information for the products, services and information provided by State Farm.
Conduct on Part of Respondent
In July of 2013 it was brought to the attention of State Farm that Complainant’s trademark "State Farm" had been registered as part of the domain name “StateFarmLogin.com.” The domain name initially resolved to a web page which appeared to be a blog page with no content and which stated it was powered by WordPress; the domain now resolves to a web page containing insurance information including links to State Farm commercials and even a State Farm customer login.
On August 13, 2013, a cease and desist letter was sent by Complainant’s Intellectual Property Administrator via email to Respondent at sitelit@gmail.com. On September 9, 2013, another cease and desist letter was sent to the Respondent via email; however, there was no response from the Respondent. On December 20, 2013 a cease and desist letter was sent, along with a draft arbitration complaint; an email response was received from Respondent on December 20, 2013 stating he refused to transfer the domain but indicating that the site would be taken down.
Respondent Has No Legitimate Interest in the Domain Name
Because of the substantial efforts by State Farm, the public associates the phrase “State Farm” with the owner of the servicemark “State Farm.” The State Farm mark is distinctive and has acquired secondary meaning. The domain name at issue is confusingly similar to the State Farm servicemark that it has been using since 1930 and to other State Farm registered marks. Moreover, the domain name is confusingly similar to products, services or information that State Farm offers generally to the public as well as on its web sites.
The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not associated with, affiliated with or sponsored by State Farm, the owner of the servicemark "State Farm." State Farm did not authorize the Respondent to register the domain name or to use the State Farm trademark for the Respondent’s business purposes.
Respondent is not commonly known under the domain name “StateFarmLogin.com.” It is believed that the Respondent has never been known by or performed business under the domain name at issue. The Respondent does not possess independent intellectual property rights in the name. In addition, State Farm does not have a contractual arrangement with Respondent that would allow them to offer services under the State Farm name.
State Farm believes that the Respondent registered the name to create the impression of association with State Farm, its agents, products, sponsorships, and services; to trade off the good will associated with the State Farm name; and/or to create initial interest confusion for individuals looking for information about State Farm.
Respondent Has Acted in Bad Faith
It is clear that the name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to State Farm trademarks. Indeed, the name includes the State Farm registered mark "State Farm.” This domain is clearly intended to attract individuals seeking information on State Farm and create customer confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the site.
State Farm has filed numerous complaints relating to its domain names under the ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Process. The arbitrators have consistently found that the use of a State Farm trademark in a domain name, whether or not additional language, characters or hyphens are added to the State Farm name, is confusingly similar to State Farm trademarks and that such registrations have been done in bad faith. (See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Advisory Services, Inc., FA94662 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2000), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bulldog, Inc., FA94427 (Nat. Arb. Forum, May 27, 2000), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. I & B, FA94719 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2000), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. JIT Consulting, FA94335 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 24, 2000), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Life en Theos, FA94663 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 1, 2000), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Try Harder & Company, FA94730 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 15, 2000), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. J & B, Inc., FA94802 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 13, 2000), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Richard Pierce, FA94808 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 6, 2000), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. HPR, FA94829 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 22, 2000), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Dean Gagnon, FA0710001087389 (Nat. Arb. Forum, November 16, 2007), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jung Tae Young, FAFA0710001087458 (Nat. Arb. Forum, November 20, 2007), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Richard Pompilio, FAFA0710001092410 (Nat. Arb. Forum, November 20, 2007). (Decisions can be viewed at www.icann.org)
As in the cases above, Respondent has no legitimate claim in the domain name at issue. In addition, the facts in evidence demonstrate that Respondent has registered and is using the name in bad faith.
In accordance with 15 U.S.C. §1125(d) Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name was in bad faith in that:
a) Respondent has never been known by the name “State Farm.” The Respondent has never traded under the name “State Farm.” Respondent has not acquired a trademark or other intellectual property rights in the domain name in question. This obvious lack of right to use the name in question shows bad faith registration and use.
b) Despite having registered the domain name “StateFarmLogin.com,” Respondent is not authorized to sell products, engage in sponsorships or services for or on behalf of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, its affiliates or subsidiaries and is not an independent contractor agent of State Farm. Registering a domain name for products and services that it does not have authority to offer, shows that the Respondent has acted in bad faith.
c) While the Respondent registered the domain name “StateFarmLogin.com,” giving the impression that interested individuals will receive information regarding State Farm, the fact is individuals were initially sent to a web page which appeared to be a blog page with no content and which stated it was powered by WordPress; the domain now resolves to a web page containing insurance information appearing to be legitimate State Farm products, including links to a State Farm commercial and social media sites and even a State Farm customer login. The unauthorized use of a trademark to generate business in this manner reflects that the Respondent has acted in bad faith.
d) Respondent’s use of “StateFarmLogin.com” domain name constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(a)(iii). See Fossil, Inc. v. NAS, FA 92525 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2000) (transferring the <fossilwatch.com> domain name from the respondent, a watch dealer not otherwise authorized to sell the complainant’s goods, to the complainant); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Cox-2 Vioxx.com, FA 124508 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 16, 2002) (“Unauthorized use of Complainant’s CELEBREX mark to sell Complainant’s products represents bad faith use under Policy ¶4(b)(iii).”).
Respondent presumably profits from the sale of counterfeit insurance products and is attempting to profit from Internet users’ confusion as to Complainant’s sponsorship of or affiliation with the disputed domain name, resolving website, and counterfeit products. Respondent increases the probability of this confusion by using a similar color scheme as Complainant’s official website and featuring Complainant’s State Farm mark extensively on the resolving website. Respondent’s attempt to profit from Internet users’ confusion constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Ali, FA 353151 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 13, 2004) (“Respondent [used “HP” in its domain name] to benefit from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s HP marks and us[ed] the <hpdubai.com> domain name, in part, to provide products similar to those of Complainant. Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”); see also Hunter Fan Co. v. MSS, FA 98067 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 23, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to sell the complainant’s products without permission and mislead Internet users by implying that the respondent was affiliated with the complainant).
e) Respondent has been sent Complainant’s cease and desist letter for notification of Respondent’s unauthorized use of the name in question. Failure to respond with legitimate information for use or intention to use the name and then failure to comply with Complainant’s cease and desist request demonstrates it has registered and is using the name in bad faith.
f) The Respondent registered its domain name on July 24, 2013. (See Attachment 2) State Farm registered its domain name “statefarm.com” on May 24, 1995. (See Attachment 5) The Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s long-term use of the trademark “State Farm,” “State Farm Insurance” and the long-term use of the domain name “statefarm.com.” The Respondent’s registration of the domain name was intended to be in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(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.
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 Complainant to prove the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(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 is engaged in the insurance and the financial services industry. Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations with the United States Patent & trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the STATE FARM (e.g., Reg. No. 1,979,585, registered June 11, 1996), inter alia. Respondent resides in China according to the WHOIS. Policy ¶4(a)(i) does not require Complainant to register its mark in the country where Respondent resides, as long as Complainant establishes rights in the mark in some jurisdiction. See 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 and it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction). The Panel finds Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (determining that the complainant’s trademark registrations with the USPTO for the CHEAPTICKETS and CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks were adequate to establish its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i)).
Complainant argues Respondent’s <statefarmlogin.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark. Respondent includes Complainant’s STATE FARM in its entirety and adds the generic term “login.” Respondent’s addition of a generic term does not adequately distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark according to Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Westfield Corp. v. Hobbs, D2000-0227 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (finding the <westfieldshopping.com> domain name confusingly similar because the WESTFIELD mark was the dominant element). Respondent also removes the space in Complainant’s STATE FARM mark and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, both changes are required by the syntax of a domain name. Respondent’s elimination of spaces and adding a gTLD is disregarded in a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis. See Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i)). Respondent’s <statefarmlogin.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii). Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has 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 claims Respondent is not commonly known under the domain name <statefarmlogin.com>. Respondent has never traded under the name STATE FARM. Respondent has not acquired a trademark or other intellectual property rights in the domain name in question. The WHOIS information lists “Kurt W” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. In Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006), the panel concluded that 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 respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name. It appears to this Panel Respondent is not commonly known by the <statefarmlogin.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(ii).
Complainant claims Respondent registered the <statefarmlogin.com> domain name to give the impression interested individuals will receive information regarding State Farm (or try to log into their account). Respondent’s disputed domain name now resolves to a web page containing insurance information appearing to be legitimate State Farm products, including links to a State Farm commercial and social media sites and even a State Farm customer log-in (which appears to redirect to the real State Farm web site). Complainant Respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to offer competing links or products is not a Policy ¶4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or 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); see also Alcon, Inc. v. ARanked, FA 1306493 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 18, 2010) (“The Panel finds that capitalizing on the well-known marks of Complainant by attracting internet users to its disputed domain names where Respondent sells competing products of Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”).
Finally, this Panel does not believe Respondent’s real name is “Kurt W.” People’s last names aren’t just single letters. Therefore, this Panel finds Respondent did not give accurate WHOIS information when Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Therefore, Respondent cannot acquire any rights to the disputed domain name because Respondent did not candidly disclose Respondent’s true identity.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant claims Respondent’s use of <statefarmlogin.com> domain name disrupts Complainant’s business. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a web site providing insurance information for what appears to be legitimate State Farm products and includes links to a State Farm commercial and social media sites and even a State Farm customer log-in. Respondent appears to be passing itself off as Complainant. Respondent has registered and is using the <statefarmlogin.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iii). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii).”).
Complainant claims Respondent presumably profits from the sale of counterfeit insurance products and is attempting to profit from Internet users’ confusion as to Complainant’s sponsorship or of affiliation with the disputed domain name, resolving website, and counterfeit products. Respondent has failed to respond to this claim. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a web page containing insurance information appearing to be legitimate State Farm products, including links to a State Farm commercial and social media sites and even a State Farm customer log-in. Respondent appears to be using the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to its own website for financial gain, which constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See MathForum.com, LLC v. Weiguang Huang, D2000-0743 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv) where the respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark and the domain name was used to host a commercial website that offered similar services offered by the complainant under its mark).
Complainant claims Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s long-term use of the STATE FARM mark. Complainant registered its <statefarm.com> domain name on May 24, 1995. While panels have concluded that constructive notice is not sufficient to support a bad faith finding, Respondent’s use of the STATE FARM mark on the disputed domain name’s resolving website clearly indicates Respondent had actual knowledge of the mark and Complainant's rights (especially since Respondent linked to Complainant’s web site in some areas). 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).
Finally, a Respondent who fails to disclose accurate WHOIS information in a commercial context is rebuttably presumed to have registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Since Respondent has filed to take any steps to rebut this presumption, this presumption alone constitutes sufficient grounds to find bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered the <statefarmlogin.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Friday, February 21, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page