Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, Inc. v. Liqian
Claim Number: FA1409001582252
Complainant is Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joseph L. Doherty, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Liqian (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <trustedchoce.com>, registered with HANGZHOU AIMING NETWORK CO.,LTD.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 29, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 6, 2014. The Complaint was received in both Chinese and English.
On September 29, 2014, HANGZHOU AIMING NETWORK CO. LTD confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <trustedchoce.com> domain name is registered with HANGZHOU AIMING NETWORK CO. LTD and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HANGZHOU AIMING NETWORK CO. LTD has verified that Respondent is bound by the HANGZHOU AIMING NETWORK CO. LTD 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 October 7, 2014, the Forum served the Chinese language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 27, 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@trustedchoce.com. Also on October 7, 2014, the Chinese language 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 November 4, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant is an online insurance company that provides consumers with accurate, real-time, personal rate quotes from a number of insurance companies.
Complainant has rights in the TRUSTED CHOICE mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,863,176 registered July 13, 2004).
Complainant registered the <trustedchoice.com> domain name on April 13, 2000 and has continuously used the site since that date.
Respondent’s <trustedchoce.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRUSTED CHOICE mark. Respondent removes the spaces between the words in Complainant’s mark, as well as eliminates the letter “I” in “CHOICE.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <trustedchoce.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent additionally, has not acquired any trade or service mark rights in the domain name, and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use any of Complainant’s marks for any purpose. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a website displaying advertisement links to Complainant’s competitors. Respondent’s resolving website purports to allow consumers to obtain quotes for car insurance through various links, including Complainant’s legitimate website and competing insurers. Respondent is commercially profiting from the competing use of the disputed domain name. Respondent’s disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of Complainant’s TRUSTED CHOICE mark.
Respondent registered and is using the <trustedchoce.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent has a history of typosquatting behavior. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name competes with Complainant by offering the same services as Complainant. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attract and confuse Internet users by crafting a typosquatted version of Complainant’s mark, and using it to resolve to a website aimed at earning revenue from misdirected consumers searching for Complainant’s legitimate website. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and Complainant’s mark due to the fame of Complainant’s TRUSTED CHOICE mark and the nature of Respondent’s use of the mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the TRUSTED CHOICE mark through its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in its relevant trademarks.
Respondent’s at-issue domain name addresses a website that purports to allow consumers to obtain quotes for car insurance through various links, including Complainant’s legitimate website and competing insurers.
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO trademark registration for the TRUSTED CHOICE demonstrates Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i). Complainant’s rights exist notwithstanding that Respondent may operate outside the jurisdiction of the trademark’s registrar. See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also, 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; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
In forming the at-issue domain name Respondent removes the space between the terms in the TRUSTED CHOICE trademark, removes the letter “I” in CHOICE, and then appends the top-level domain name “.com” to the resulting string. These alterations to Complainant’s TRUSTED CHOICE trademark are insufficient to distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that the <trustedchoce.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRUSTED CHOICE mark. See Google Inc. v. N/A/ k gautam, FA 1524232 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2013) (finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the at-issue mark despite the misspelling of the mark by omitting letters, the addition of a generic term, and the addition of a generic top-level domain); see also, 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)).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name lists “Liqian” as the domain name’s registrant and there is nothing in the record that otherwise suggests Respondent is commonly known by the <trustedchoce.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name pursuant to usTLD Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) [the UDRP section equivalent to usTLD Policy 4(c)(iii)] does not apply).
Furthermore, Respondent’s at-issue website purports to allow consumers to obtain quotes for car insurance through various links, including Complainant’s legitimate website. Such links including but are not limited to; “Insurance,” “Home Insurance,” “Buy to Let Home Insurance,” “Insurance for Unoccupied House,” “Geico Car Insurance, “ “AARP Auto Insurance,” “USAA Auto Insurance” and “Direct General Insurance.” Additionally, the website addressed by the at-issue domain name is designed to send visitors to competing insurance providers. Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name to compete with Complainant is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name and therefore does not evidence Respondent’s rights or interests in the domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was not 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)).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶4(a)(ii) and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
The domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below, Policy ¶4(b) specific bad faith circumstances as well as other circumstance are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, Respondent has a history of typosquatting behavior. For example, in Indep. Ins. Agents & Brokers of Am., Inc. v. Liqian, FA 1562075 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 5, 2014), the panel concluded that Respondent engaged in typosquatting with regard to <trustdchoice.com> and transferred the domain name to Complainant. Such evidence of a prior adverse UDRP proceeding suggests Respondent’s bad faith in the instant dispute pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bin g Glu, FA 1036129 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2007) (holding prior UDRP proceedings were sufficient evidence of a pattern of bad faith registrations).
Second, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to compete with Complainant by promoting the same services as Complainant. As mentioned above, Respondent uses the <trustedchoce.com> domain name to direct Internet users to a website displaying links and advertisements that redirect Internet users to third-party websites that compete with Complainant by offering similar products. These hyperlinks appear to ultimately promote insurance companies and quote rates. Using the domain name in this manner is disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (“The disputed domain names resolve to websites that list links to competitors of Complainant, evidence that Respondent intends to disrupt Complainant’s business, a further indication of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate websites that compete with the complainant’s business).
Third, Respondent uses the domain name to attract and confuse internet users so that they may be inadvertently delivered to a website aimed at earning revenue from these misdirected consumers who were actually looking for Complainant’s legitimate website. Using the confusingly similar <trustedchoce.com> domain name to misdirect Internet users in this manner demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith use and registration of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Homer TLC, Inc. v. Hong Kong Domain / Domain Admin, FA1401001541730 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2014) (following prior Forum decisions that held that “it is bad faith to use a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website displaying links that resolve to pay-per-click third party websites.”).
Fourth, Respondent registered the <trustedchoce.com> domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the TRUSTED CHOICE mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark, the use of the confusingly similar domain name to promote competing products, and from Respondent’s overt misspelling of Complainant’s trademark in forming the at-issue domain name in this dispute and the domain name at-issue in prior disputes. Given the forgoing, it is clear that Respondent intentionally registered <trustedchoce.com> precisely to improperly exploit its trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <trustedchoce.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Finally, Respondent’s <trustedchoce.com> domain name exemplifies typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the string in a domain name wishing and hoping that Internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services associated with a targeted trademark and thereby be directed to a web presence controlled by the domain name’s registrant. Here Respondent simply removes the letter “i” in Complainant’s TRUSTED CHOICE trademark to form the typosquatted domain name’s second level. Respondent’s typosquatting is, in itself, evidence of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <trustedchoce.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: November 10, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page