State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Keh Jong jeng
Claim Number: FA1801001769512
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Keh Jong jeng (“Respondent”), Arkansas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarmdriver.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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 30, 2018; the Forum received payment on January 30, 2018.
On Jan 31, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <statefarmdriver.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 January 31, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 20, 2018 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@statefarmdriver.com. Also on January 31, 2018, 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 formal response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did send an e-mail to the Forum, see below.
On February 21, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is a nationally known company in the insurance and financial services industry that has been doing business under the name STATE FARM since 1930. Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM and multiple related marks based upon its registration of the marks in the United States in 2012 and earlier.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark, as the mark is part of the domain name.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use the STATE FARM mark in any manner. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the domain name resolves to a “website coming soon” page.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. It intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Further, Respondent is not using, nor has made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Finally, Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s long-term use of the STATE FARM mark at the time Respondent registered and subsequently used the domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In his e-mail to the Forum, Respondent quotes the instructions he received from Complainant regarding how to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant, and states, in pertinent part: “I am sorry that I didn’t recognize the issue until today when I received the written notice. Previous email communications were buried in the SPAM folder.” He goes on to ask whether the instructions to transfer the domain name are still valid and states: “Please be advised that this domain was registered but has never been used or referenced in web sites or documents.”
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.
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.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s e-mail indicates his consent to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant. Thus, in the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.
See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <statefarmdriver.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: February 21, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page