State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Karan Mistry / texas car world
Claim Number: FA2001001878647
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Karan Mistry / texas car world (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <claudiasalasstatefarm.com>, <josechavezstatefarm.com>, <claudiastatefarm.com> and <chavezstatefarm.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 13, 2020; the Forum received payment on January 13, 2020.
On January 14, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <claudiasalasstatefarm.com>, <josechavezstatefarm.com>, <claudiastatefarm.com> and <chavezstatefarm.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 14, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 3, 2020 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@claudiasalasstatefarm.com, postmaster@josechavezstatefarm.com, postmaster@claudiastatefarm.com, postmaster@chavezstatefarm.com. Also on January 14, 2020, 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. Respondent did however send an e-mail to Forum, see below.
On February 5, 2020, 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 that has been doing business under the name “State Farm” since 1930. In 1999 it opened a Federally Chartered Bank known as State Farm Bank. Complainant engages in business in both the insurance and the financial services industry. Complainant also has established a nationally recognized presence on televised and other media. Complainant claims rights in the STATE FARM mark based upon registration in the United States in 2012.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its STATE FARM mark as each domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety, less the space, merely adding what appear to be personal names and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s STATE FARM mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Additionally, Respondent doesn’t use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain names to divert Internet users away from Complainant to Respondent’s parked webpages.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent has registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or location of a product or service on Respondent’s websites or location. In addition, Respondent fails to make an active use of the disputed domain names. Furthermore, Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent, to which Respondent failed to respond or comply. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STATE FARM mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Respondent’s e-mail to the Forum states, in pertinent part: “I gave all these domains up over a year ago I sent the transfer codes to someone at statefarm. Do I need to resend or something I thought this was resolved.”
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.
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.
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."
In the present case, Respondent has agreed to transfer to the disputed domain names to Complainant. That is, 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 <claudiasalasstatefarm.com>, <josechavezstatefarm.com>, <claudiastatefarm.com> and <chavezstatefarm.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: February 5, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page