State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Maddisyn Fernandes / Fernandes Privacy Holdings
Claim Number: FA1701001711988
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Sherri Dunbar of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Maddisyn Fernandes / Fernandes Privacy Holdings (“Respondent”), Bolivia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <gstatefarm.com>, registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp.
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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 11, 2017; the Forum received payment on January 11, 2017.
On January 16, 2017, Internet Domain Service BS Corp confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <gstatefarm.com> domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet Domain Service BS Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet Domain Service BS 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 January 16, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 6, 2017 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@gstatefarm.com. Also on January 16, 2017, 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 February 13, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port 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
Complainant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, is a nationally known insurance and financial services company. Complainant has rights to the STATE FARM mark based upon numerous registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as well as various other trademark agencies throughout the world (e.g., Reg. No. 1,979,585, registered June 11, 1996). See Compl., at Attached Ex. 1. Respondent’s <gstatefarm.com> is confusingly similar to the STATE FARM mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <gstatefarm.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the STATE FARM mark for the Respondent’s business purposes. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked page with links to various third-party websites, some of which offer products or services which compete directly with Complainant. See Compl., at Attached Ex. 3. This use amounts to neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per the Policy.
Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s registration and use of <gstatefarm.com> amounts to an attempt to confuse and attract Internet users for commercial gain, and to disrupt Complainant’s business. Further, Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s right in the STATE FARM mark when it registered and subsequently used the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The disputed domain name, <gstatefarm.com>, was created on Aug. 8, 2016.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
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 (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 disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark, STATE FARM. Complainant has adequately plead it interests in and to this trademark. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by merely adding the letter “g” to the beginning of the trademark and the g TLD “.com” to the end. This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be similar to Complainant’s trademark.
Further, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name. Respondent has no license or other authority to register the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Maddisyn Fernandes” with “Fernandes Privacy Holdings.” As such, there is nothing in this record that indicates Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The Panel further finds that Respondent has failed to use the names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent’s <gstatefarm.com> resolves to a parked web page displaying third-party click-through links to various companies and parties, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant.See Compl., at Attached Ex. 3. Such use does not grant rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii).
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name.
Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. Use of a disputed domain name to resolve to a website which links to services competing with Complainant can be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) & 4(b)(iv). See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.com Legal, FA1506001622088 (FORUM July 10, 2015) (“The use of a domain name’s resolving website to host links to competitors of a complainant shows intent to disrupt that complainant’s business, thereby showing bad faith in use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). The Panel finds that as the disputed domain name resolves to a page with links to third parties, some of which compete with Complainant’s business, Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) & 4(b)(iv). See Compl., at Attached Ex. 3.
Given the fame of Complainant’s mark and the totality of the circumstances, the Panel also finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <gstatefarm.com> domain name transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: February 14, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page