State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Hadassah Saltzman
Claim Number: FA2010001915956
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, US. Respondent is Hadassah Saltzman (“Respondent”), Michigan, US.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarmmedicalinsurance.com>, registered with Google 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 October 6, 2020; the Forum received payment on October 6, 2020.
On October 6, 2020, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <statefarmmedicalinsurance.com> domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 October 7, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 27, 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@statefarmmedicalinsurance.com. Also on October 7, 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. Complainant’s counsel sent additional documents to the Forum, see below.
On October 30, 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.
Preliminary Issue: Identity Theft
Respondent contends that it has been the victim of identity theft, see below. As the Forum did not receive any further response from the named Respondent it proceeded with the Panel appointment. The Panel has taken the following rules and precedent into account in making a determination on not redacting Respondent’s identity.
According to Policy ¶ 4(j), “[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision.” In Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellzfargo.com>, FA 362108 (Forum Dec. 30, 2004) and Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellsfargossl>, FA 453727 (Forum May 19, 2005), the panels omitted the respondents’ personal information from the decisions, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(j), in an attempt to protect the respondents who claimed to be victims of identity theft from becoming aligned with acts the actual registrants appeared to have sought to impute to the respondents.).
However, according to Forum Supplemental Rule 15(b), “All requests pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(j) and Rule 16(b) to have a portion of the decision redacted, must be made in the Complaint, the Response, or an Additional Submission that is submitted before the Panel’s decision is published.” (emphasis added). Rule 1 defines “respondent” as “the holder of a domain-name registration against which a complaint is initiated;” and Forum Supplemental Rule 1(d) further defines “the holder of a domain-name registration” as “the single person or entity listed in the WHOIS registration information at the time of commencement.” The Panel notes precedent which holds the registrar-confirmed registrant of a disputed domain (per the WHOIS at commencement of the proceeding) the proper respondent, notwithstanding the possibility that said respondent’s identity was stolen. See, e.g., Banco Bradesco S/A v. Gisele Moura Leite, D2014-0414 (WIPO Apr. 30, 2014).
In the instant case, there has been no request in the Complaint to redact any portion of the decision, nor has there been a Response or an Additional Submission. Consequently, the Panel finds that it is not warranted to redact Respondent’s name and location from the Panel’s decision,
A. Complainant
Complainant states that is a nationally known company that has been doing business under the name “State Farm” since 1930. In 1999, Complainant opened a Federally Chartered Bank known as State Farm Bank. Complainant engages in business in both the insurance and the financial services industry and it has established a nationally recognized presence on televised and other media. Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark in the United States in 2012.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its STATE FARM mark as it merely adds the industry related words “medical” and “insurance” to the mark.
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the STATE FARM mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services: the disputed domain name is not being used and there is no demonstrable indication that legitimate content would be associated with the disputed domain name.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent makes no active use of the disputed domain name. Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s cease-and-desist letters. Respondent knew of should have known of Complainant’s trademark rights when it registered the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Respondent’s counsel did however send emails to Complainant’s counsel, and agree that those emails should form part of the record for the present proceedings. Accordingly, Complainant transmitted those emails to the Forum. The emails from Respondent’s counsel state, in pertinent part (emphasis added): “[Respondent] has never purchased a domain name in her life and certainly did not purchase this domain name. As a point of information, [Respondent’s] credit card was used without her authorization (i.e., hacked) earlier this year. The thief may have used the card to purchase the State Farm domain name.” And “This will confirm that [Respondent] has never purchased any rights in the subject domain and does not object to those rights being transferred to State Farm. You may submit this email, as well as my prior email, to the Forum.”
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, 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.”).
The Panel notes that Complainant has requested that it proceed to analyze the three elements of the Policy despite Respondent’s consent to transfer the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that such an analysis is not required in the circumstances of the present case.
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 <statefarmmedicalinsurance.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: October 30, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page