Combined Insurance Company of America v. Online Resource / Online Resource Management Ltd.
Claim Number: FA1603001667627
Complainant is Combined Insurance Company of America (“Complainant”), represented by Timothy D. Pecsenye of Blank Rome LLP, Pennsylvania, United States. Respondent is Online Resource / Online Resource Management Ltd. (“Respondent”), Cayman Islands.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <combinedinsureance.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 28, 2016; the Forum received payment on March 28, 2016.
On March 28, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <combinedinsureance.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On March 29, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 18, 2016 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@combinedinsureance.com. Also on March 29, 2016, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 19, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 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 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
1. Respondent’s <combinedinsureance.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <combinedinsureance.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <combinedinsureance.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds a registration for the COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 669,093, registered Oct. 28, 1958).
Respondent registered the <combinedinsureance.com> domain name on January 18, 2016, and uses it to resolve to a website displaying pay-per-click advertisements for insurance services.
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(f), 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 Panel finds that Complainant’s USPTO registration for its COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA mark is sufficient in establishing rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), even while Respondent resides in a different country. 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 [Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.”).
Respondent’s <combinedinsureance.com> domain name incorporates the prominent words COMBINED INSURANCE of Complainant’s mark, misspells insurance as “insureance,” and adds the “.com” gTLD. The disputed domain name omits the descriptive terms “Company of America.” Panels have found such alterations to a mark are insufficient in overcoming a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Internet Movie Database, Inc. v. Temme, FA 449837 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 24, 2005) (holding that the respondent’s disputed domain names were confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark because the disputed domain names were common misspellings of the mark involving keys that were adjacent to the current keys comprising the complainant’s mark); see also Abt Elecs., Inc. v. Ricks, FA 904239 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (“The Panel also finds that Respondent’s <abt.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s ABT mark since addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) is irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”); see also Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (holding that “the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ‘TESCO PERSONAL FINANCE’ mark in that it merely omits the descriptive term ‘personal.’”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <combinedinsureance.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have 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 argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <combinedinsureance.com> domain name and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists “Online Resource/Online Resource Management Ltd.” as the registrant of record. The Panel thus finds that there is no basis to find Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the 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 the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant argues that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <combinedinsureance.com> domain name. The Panel notes that the domain name resolves to a website displaying pay-per-click advertisements for insurance services, such as “Self Employed Health Insurance,” “Maternity Health Insurance,” and “Small Company Health Insurance.” These links directly compete with Complainant’s insurance business. Prior panels have found such use by a respondent is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. v. Bigfoot Ventures LLC, FA 1195961 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2008) (holding that the respondent had not demonstrated a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use when “the website resolving from the disputed domain name displays links to travel products and services, which directly compete with Complainant’s business”). Therefore, this Panel finds that Respondent’s <combinedinsureance.com> domain name constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users to its site for commercial gain by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the Respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <combinedinsureance.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: April 21, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page