State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Rob Patel
Claim Number: FA1412001594656
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Sherri Dunbar of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Rob Patel (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <40statefarm.com>, registered with RegisterMatrix.com Corp.
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 December 10, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 10, 2014.
On December 18, 2014, RegisterMatrix.com Corp. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <40statefarm.com> domain name is registered with RegisterMatrix.com Corp. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. RegisterMatrix.com Corp. has verified that Respondent is bound by the RegisterMatrix.com Corp. 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 December 19, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 8, 2015 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@40statefarm.com. Also on December 19, 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 January 13, 2015, 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 May of 2014 it was brought to the attention of State Farm that Complainant’s trademark "State Farm" had been registered as part of the domain name “40StateFarm.com.” The domain name resolves to a web page with a directory of links to a variety of companies/products.
On May 13, 2014, a cease and desist letter was sent by Complainant’s Intellectual Property Administrator via email to Respondent at contact@privacyprotect.org. On June 18, 2014, another cease and desist letter was sent to the Respondent via email; however, there was no response from the Respondent. On September 30, 2014 a cease and desist letter was sent, along with a draft arbitration complaint.
Respondent Has No Legitimate Interest in the Domain Name
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 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 “40StateFarm.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 “40StateFarm.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 “40StateFarm.com,” giving the impression that interested individuals will receive information regarding State Farm, the fact is individuals are sent to a web page with a directory of links to a variety of companies/products. 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 name 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 name and no demonstrable indication that legitimate content would be forthcoming. Even if the Respondent did put information on its website, its content along with the proposed domain name, would be in direct conflict with information State Farm already provides and would cause confusion to potential customers. Failure to resolve the domain name to legitimate content indicates that the Respondent has no legitimate reason for having registered the name and demonstrates that it has registered and is using the name 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).
e) Respondent’s use of “40StateFarm.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 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).
f) 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.
g) The Respondent registered its domain name on April 28, 2014. State Farm registered its domain name “statefarm.com” on May 24, 1995. 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 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 uses the STATE FARM mark in connection with insurance and banking services. Complainant has registered STATE FARM with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 1,979,585, registered June 11, 1996). Complainant’s rights in the STATE FARM mark are adequately proven for purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i) by Complainant’s USPTO registration, even though Respondent purportedly resides in India. At this stage of the proceedings, Complainant merely needs to prove SOME rights to its mark, not that Complainant’s rights are superior to Respondent’s rights. See Homer TLC, Inc. v. Song Bin, FA 1505218 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 30, 2013) (“Complainant’s USPTO registration sufficiently establishes its rights in the HOME DEPOT mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i), despite the fact Respondent resides outside of the United States.”).
Complainant claims the <40statefarm.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its STATE FARM mark. The disputed domain name “bookends” the STATE FARM mark with the prefix “40” and the generic extension “.com.” The disputed domain name removes the space between the two-word mark. Spaces are not permitted characters in domain names. Likewise, domain names require gTLDs (or at least ccTLDs). Therefore, the omission of spaces and the addition of the gTLD must be ignored for the purposes of a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “spaces are impermissible and a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names. Therefore, the panel finds that the disputed domain name [<americangenerallifeinsurance.com>] is confusingly similar to the complainant’s [AMERICAN GENERAL] mark.”). As for the addition of “40,” the Panel refers to Am. Online Inc. v. Chinese ICQ Network, D2000-0808 (WIPO Aug. 31, 2000), where the panel found the addition of the numeral 4 in the domain name <4icq.com> failed to adequately distinguish the domain name from the ICQ mark. Adding the number “40” does not adequately distinguish Complainant’s mark from the domain name in this Proceeding. The mark and the domain name are confusingly similar pursuant to 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 has no legitimate claim to the disputed domain name at issue. Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name. There is no obvious connection between the domain name and the WHOIS information. Respondent has never been authorized to sell products on behalf of Complainant. Respondent has failed to submit a reply to this Complaint, leaving these issues uncontested. There is no factual basis in the record to find Respondent is commonly known by the <40statefarm.com> name under Policy ¶4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record).
The domain name diverts users to a dynamic parking page promoting links to a variety of companies and products. Some of the links are to Complainant and some are to unrelated third parties. They include “State Farm,” “Small Business Grants,” “Organic Food,” and “Government Grants.” Using a disputed domain name to promote links to the complainant and other websites unrelated to the complainant does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Dot Stop, FA 145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2003) (finding the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to its own website, which contained a series of hyperlinks to unrelated websites, was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names); Meyerson v. Speedy Web, FA 960409 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2007) (finding where a respondent has failed to offer any goods or services on its website other than links to a variety of third-party websites, it was not using a domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii)). Based upon this evidence, Respondent has failed to use this <40statefarm.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i), or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).
Respondent used a privacy service to register the domain name. This means Respondent acquired no rights by actually registering the disputed domain name because Respondent does not publicly associate itself with the domain name. Therefore, Respondent could not acquire any rights.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant claims Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business, and therefore constitutes Policy ¶4(b)(iii) bad faith. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with links to Complainant’s “State Farm,” as well as other links such as, “Small Business Grants,” “Organic Food,” and “Government Grants.” Such a use demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iii). See David Hall Rare Coins v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 915206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii) because respondent used the disputed domain name to advertise goods and services of complainant’s competitors, thereby disrupting the complainant’s business).
Complainant claims Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name for commercial gain. Dynamic parking pages usually generate some kind of revenue for their owner, even if only credits to be used towards web hosting. This constitutes adequate evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iv) in the absence of any contradictory evidence. See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).
Respondent registered the domain name using a privacy service. This Panel has held privacy registrations in the commercial context give rise to a rebuttable presumption of bad faith registration and use. Respondent has done nothing to rebut that presumption. Therefore, bad faith must be found.
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 <40statefarm.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Monday, January 19, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page