State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Joe Villa
Claim Number: FA1401001540404
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Sherri Dunbar of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Joe Villa (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <statefarmpropertyclaims.us> and <statefarminsuranceclaims.us>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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 23, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 23, 2014.
On January 23, 2014, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <statefarmpropertyclaims.us> and <statefarminsuranceclaims.us> 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 the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On January 31, 2014, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of February 12, 2014 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent in compliance with Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”).
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 27, 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 Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, the 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 names 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 names 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 expended 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 August 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 names “StateFarmPropertyClaims.us” and “StateFarmInsuranceClaims.us.” The domain names resolve to a parked web page containing click-through ads for various products and services and which states they are provided by GoDaddy.com.
On August 30, 2013, a cease and desist letter was sent by Complainant’s Intellectual Property Administrator via email to Respondent at stemcellcapital@yahoo.com; however, there was no response from the Respondent. On October 16, 2013 a cease and desist letter was sent, along with a draft arbitration complaint. Additionally, on December 27, 2013, Complainant was awarded transfer of several similar domain names registered by the Respondent in NAF case number FA1311001530548.
Respondent Has No Legitimate Interest in the Domain Names
Because of the substantial efforts of 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 names at issue are confusingly similar to the State Farm servicemark that it has been using since 1930 and to other State Farm registered marks. Moreover, the domain names are confusingly similar to products, services or information that State Farm offers generally to the public as well as on its web sites.
In accordance with usTLD Rule 3(c)(ix)(2) and usTLD Policy ¶4(a)(ii), Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names in that:
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 names or to use the State Farm trademark for the Respondent’s business purposes.
Respondent is not commonly known under the domain names “StateFarmPropertyClaims.us” or “StateFarmInsuranceClaims.us.” It is believed that the Respondent has never been known by or performed business under the domain names at issue. The Respondent does not possess independent intellectual property rights in the names. 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 names 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 names registered by Respondent are confusingly similar to State Farm trademarks. Indeed, the name includes the State Farm registered mark "State Farm.” These domains are 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 names at issue. In addition, the facts in evidence demonstrate that Respondent has registered and is using the names in bad faith.
In accordance with usTLD Rule 3(c)(ix)(3) and usTLD Policy ¶4(a)(iii), Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names 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 names in question. Moreover, Respondent has not registered the names in question with the Secretary of State in the state in which it does business or filed incorporation papers with respect to the same. This obvious lack of right to use the names in question shows bad faith registration and use.
b) Despite having registered the domain names “StateFarmPropertyClaims.us” and “StateFarmInsuranceClaims.us,” 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 the domain names 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 names “StateFarmPropertyClaims.us” and “StateFarmInsuranceClaims.us,” giving the impression that interested individuals will receive information regarding State Farm, the fact is individuals were initially sent to parked web pages containing click-through ads for various products and services in direct competition of the Complainant, and which stated they are provided by GoDaddy.com. The domain names now resolve to parked web pages. The use of a trademark to generate business in other fashions reflects that the Respondent has acted in bad faith.
d) The Respondent is not using, nor are there any demonstrable preparations to use the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. As of the date of this Complaint, there was no legitimate content associated with the names and no demonstrable indication that legitimate content would be forthcoming. Even if the Respondent did put information on its websites, its content along with the proposed domain names, would be in direct conflict with information State Farm already provides and would cause confusion to potential customers. Failure to resolve the domain names to legitimate content indicates that the Respondent has no legitimate reason for having registered the names and demonstrates that it has registered and is using the names in bad faith.
See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of a domain name to redirect internet users to websites unrelated to a complainant’s mark is not a bona fide use under Policy ¶4(c )(i); see also Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶4(c )(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant); see also State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. LaFaive, FA 95407 (Nat. Arb. Forum September 27, 2000) (finding the unauthorized providing of information and services under the mark owned by a third party cannot be said to be the “bona fide” offering of goods or services).
e) Respondent’s multiple registrations of this famous mark without permission demonstrates bad faith intent to use the marks of others for commercial gain or to inappropriately use the good will associated with the registered marks. This is bad faith registration and use of internet domain names.
f) Respondent’s use of the “StateFarmPropertyClaims.us” and “StateFarmInsuranceClaims.us” domain names constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(a)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use); see also Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use where a respondent used the disputed domain name to operate a commercial search engine with links to the complainant’s competitors).
g) Respondent has been sent Complainant’s cease and desist letter for notification of Respondent’s unauthorized use of the names in question. Failure to respond with legitimate information for use or intention to use the names and then failure to comply with Complainant’s cease and desist request demonstrates it has registered and is using the names in bad faith.
h) The Respondent registered its domain names on August 11, 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 names+ 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 or 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 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 or 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 has rights in its STATE FARM mark, used for an array of financial and insurance services. Complainant registered the STATE FARM mark with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 1,979,585 registered June 11, 1996). USPTO registration is normally sufficient evidence of Policy ¶4(a)(i) rights. See W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 24, 2010) (stating that “the Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [UDRP ¶4(a)(i)] rights.”).
It should be noted this point is res judicata between the parties because of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Joe Villa c/o Stem Cell Capital Inc., Claim Number: FA1311001530548 (12/24/2013).
Complainant claims the <statefarmpropertyclaims.us> and <statefarminsuranceclaims.us> domain names are confusingly similar to the STATE FARM mark as they add terms related to Complainant’s business. Except for the gTLDs (which means the applicable rules are the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy, which mirrors the UDRP), these disputed domain names are identical to the disputed domain names in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Joe Villa c/o Stem Cell Capital Inc., Claim Number: FA1311001530548 (12/24/2013), meaning this issue is res judicata between the parties. Adding the country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “.us” and the descriptive phrases “propertyclaims” and “insuranceclaims” do not adequately distinguish the domain names from the STATE FARM mark. See Am. Express Co. v. McWIlliam, FA 268423 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 6, 2004) (holding that the “.us” ccTLD does not negate confusing similarity under Policy ¶4(a)(i)); see also Mead Johnson & Company, LLC v. noom kung, FA 1521731 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2013) (holding that the addition of multiple terms, both generic and descriptive, do not negate a finding of confusing similarity). Respondent’s removal of spacing from the STATE FARM mark in the disputed domain names must be disregarded because spaces are not allowed in domain names. 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 does not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i)). The <statefarmpropertyclaims.us> and <statefarminsuranceclaims.us> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s 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.”).
There is no evidence that Respondent has ever obtained, possessed, or otherwise held interest in any trade or service mark identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain names. Respondent has not responded with any evidence to the contrary. It is unlikely (although not impossible) Respondent has acquired any rights since State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Joe Villa c/o Stem Cell Capital Inc., Claim Number: FA1311001530548 (12/24/2013) was decided. Based upon the available evidence, Respondent does not hold an interest in any trade or service mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i). See Pepsico, Inc. v Becky, FA 117014 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 3, 2002) (holding that because the respondent did not own any trademarks or service marks reflecting the <pepsicola.us> domain name, it had no rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i)).
Complainant claims Respondent is not commonly known by either of the <statefarmpropertyclaims.us> and <statefarminsuranceclaims.us> domain names. Respondent is not authorized to sell or trade any products or services under the STATE FARM mark. This issue was also determined adversely to Respondent in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Joe Villa c/o Stem Cell Capital Inc., Claim Number: FA1311001530548 (12/24/2013). There is nothing in the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names (which list “Joe Villa” as the registrant of record) to suggest Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by these domain names under Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See, e.g., LawyerLocate.ca Inc v. J Kirby Inwood / CanLaw, FA 1496334 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 20, 2013) (“Respondent’s name is J Kirby Inwood and his organization’s name is CanLaw. There is no evidence Respondent is known by the Domain Names nor by the names Lawyerlocate or Lawyerlocate.ca.”).
Complainant claims Respondent has used the <statefarmpropertyclaims.us> and <statefarminsuranceclaims.us> domain names to host hyperlink advertisements to a plethora of goods and services—some competing with the STATE FARM business. Both domain names are being used to host advertisements such as “GEICO Auto Insurance,” “Esurance Auto Insurance,” as well as “Car Insurance - $19 Month” along with other advertisements. Faced with virtually the same faxts as in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Joe Villa c/o Stem Cell Capital Inc., Claim Number: FA1311001530548 (12/24/2013), this Panel reaches the same conclusion. The use of a disputed domain name to promote links to various third parties, including third parties that directly compete with Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii). 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) and WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark, websites where the respondent presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the UDRP).
Respondent has allowed the domain name to advertise GoDaddy.com, LLC’s business of selling domain names. The domain names resolve to a website promoting “New .COMs just $9.99*” along with an image of two men and a woman wearing GoDaddy apparel along with “24/7 Support” and “Learn how you can get this domain.” Respondent is ultimately accountable for the content of the <statefarmpropertyclaims.us> and <statefarminsuranceclaims.us> domain names even though Respondent does not actually design the parking page. Everything that appears on the web sites at the disputed domain names is imputed to Respondent because Respondent ultimately controls the disputed domain names. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pompilio, FA 1092410 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2007) (“As a rule, the owner of a parked domain name does not control the content appearing at the parking site. Nevertheless, it is ultimately [the] respondent who is responsible for how its domain name is used.”). Respondent has not used the disputed domain names for a Policy ¶4(c)(ii) bona fide offering, or Policy ¶4(b)(iv) legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See U.S. Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Howell, FA 152457 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 6, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s mark and the goodwill surrounding that mark as a means of attracting Internet users to an unrelated business was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
It is res judicata between the parties that Respondent actually knew about Complainant’s marks, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Joe Villa c/o Stem Cell Capital Inc., Claim Number: FA1311001530548 (12/24/2013). This Panel finds bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv). A respondent demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name is “obviously connected” with the complainant’s mark and is used for the respondent’s commercial gain. See, e.g., Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain). In this case, Respondent got “click through revenue” from the links on its parking page (or at least free parking in exchange).
Complainant argues Respondent’s decision to register not one but two infringing domain names targeting Complainant’s mark is evidence of Respondent’s pattern of bad faith use and registration. However, Complainant was not prevented from reflecting its mark in a domain name. Therefore, this isn’t a case of Policy ¶4(b)(ii) bad faith registration and use.
Complainant claims Respondent is hosting competing hyperlink advertisements through the websites at the <statefarmpropertyclaims.us> and <statefarminsuranceclaims.us> domain names and this disrupts Complainant’s business. Complainant claims the competing hyperlink advertisements evidence a Policy ¶4(b)(iii) act of unfair commercial disruption. This Panel disagreed in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Joe Villa c/o Stem Cell Capital Inc., Claim Number: FA1311001530548 (12/24/2013) and continues to disagree. There is no sufficient showing Respondent competes with Complainant.
The illustrative examples for finding bad in Policy ¶4(b) are not exhaustive. "Bad faith" is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 7th edition at page 134 as: "1. Dishonesty of belief or purpose.". In Halsey v. Brotherhood (1881), 19 Ch. D. 386 Lord Coleridge L.C.J. in determining whether there was evidence of mala fides stated that the task of the Court was to consider "whether there is anything to show that what the defendant stated was stated without reasonable and probable cause". Taken as a whole, the evidence adequately demonstrates Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered the <statefarmpropertyclaims.us> or <statefarminsuranceclaims.us> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page