State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company v. Unasi Management, Inc.
Claim
Number: FA0505000472028
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company (“Complainant”), One State Farm Plaza, A-3, Bloomington, IL
61710. Respondent is Unasi Management Inc. (“Respondent”),
Galerias Alvear, Via Argentina 2, Oficina #3, Zona 5, Panama 5235, PA.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <astatefarminsurance.com>, <dstatefarminsurance.com>,
<sstatefarminsurance.com>, <stateefarminsurance.com>,
<statefarjinsurance.com>, <statefarmibsurance.com>, <statefarminasurance.com>,
<statefarmindsurance.com>, <statefarmindurance.com>, <statefarminnsurance.com>,
<statefarminsaurance.com>, <statefarminsdurance.com>,
<statefarminsiurance.com>, <statefarminsuarnce.com>, <statefarminsuerance.com>,
<statefarminsuirance.com>, <statefarminsuraance.com>,
<statefarminsurabce.com>, <statefarminsuramnce.com>, <statefarminsuranbce.com>,
<statefarminsurancc.com>, <statefarminsurancce.com>, <statefarmiinsurance.com>,
<statefarminsurancr.com>, <statefarminsurancve.com>, <statefarminsurancxe.com>,
<statefarminsuranec.com>, <statefarminsuranmce.com>, <statefarminsuranvce.com>,
<statefarminsuranve.com>, <statefarminsuranxce.com>, <statefarminsursnce.com>,
<statefarminsurtance.com>, <statefarminsutance.com>, <statefarminsutrance.com>,
<statefarminsuurance.com>, <statefarminsuyrance.com>,
<statefarminsyrance.com>, <statefarminsyurance.com>, <statefarminurance.com>,
<statefarmisnurance.com>, <statefarmjnsurance.com>, <statefarmknsurance.com>,
<statefarmminsurance.com>, <statefarmninsurance.com>,
<statefarmnisurance.com>, <statefarmynsurance.com>, <statefarnminsurance.com>,
<statefarrminsurance.com>, <stateffarminsurance.com>
and <staterfarm.com>, registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a
Dotregistrar.com.
The
undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that
to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist
in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks
Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically May 4,
2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint May
5, 2005.
On
May 6, 2005, Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com, confirmed by e-mail to
the National Arbitration Forum that the domain names <astatefarminsurance.com>,
<dstatefarminsurance.com>, <sstatefarminsurance.com>,
<stateefarminsurance.com>, <statefarjinsurance.com>, <statefarmibsurance.com>,
<statefarminasurance.com>, <statefarmindsurance.com>,
<statefarmindurance.com>, <statefarminnsurance.com>, <statefarminsaurance.com>,
<statefarminsdurance.com>, <statefarminsiurance.com>,
<statefarminsuarnce.com>, <statefarminsuerance.com>, <statefarminsuirance.com>,
<statefarminsuraance.com>, <statefarminsurabce.com>, <statefarminsuramnce.com>,
<statefarminsuranbce.com>, <statefarminsurancc.com>, <statefarminsurancce.com>,
<statefarmiinsurance.com>, <statefarminsurancr.com>, <statefarminsurancve.com>,
<statefarminsurancxe.com>, <statefarminsuranec.com>, <statefarminsuranmce.com>,
<statefarminsuranvce.com>, <statefarminsuranve.com>, <statefarminsuranxce.com>,
<statefarminsursnce.com>, <statefarminsurtance.com>, <statefarminsutance.com>,
<statefarminsutrance.com>, <statefarminsuurance.com>,
<statefarminsuyrance.com>, <statefarminsyrance.com>, <statefarminsyurance.com>,
<statefarminurance.com>, <statefarmisnurance.com>, <statefarmjnsurance.com>,
<statefarmknsurance.com>, <statefarmminsurance.com>, <statefarmninsurance.com>,
<statefarmnisurance.com>, <statefarmynsurance.com>, <statefarnminsurance.com>,
<statefarrminsurance.com>, <stateffarminsurance.com>
and <staterfarm.com> are registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a
Dotregistrar.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Iholdings.com,
Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com verified that Respondent is bound by the Iholdings.com,
Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com registration agreement and thereby has agreed to
resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with
ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On
May 10, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
May 31, 2005, by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was
transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons
listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing
contacts, and to postmaster@astatefarminsurance.com,
postmaster@dstatefarminsurance.com, postmaster@sstatefarminsurance.com,
postmaster@stateefarminsurance.com, postmaster@statefarjinsurance.com,
postmaster@statefarmibsurance.com, postmaster@statefarminasurance.com,
postmaster@statefarmindsurance.com, postmaster@statefarmindurance.com,
postmaster@statefarminnsurance.com, postmaster@statefarminsaurance.com,
postmaster@statefarminsdurance.com, postmaster@statefarminsiurance.com, postmaster@statefarminsuarnce.com,
postmaster@statefarminsuerance.com, postmaster@statefarminsuirance.com,
postmaster@statefarminsuraance.com, postmaster@statefarminsurabce.com,
postmaster@statefarminsuramnce.com, postmaster@statefarminsuranbce.com,
postmaster@statefarminsurancc.com, postmaster@statefarminsurancce.com,
postmaster@statefarmiinsurance.com, postmaster@statefarminsurancr.com,
postmaster@statefarminsurancve.com, postmaster@statefarminsurancxe.com,
postmaster@statefarminsuranec.com, postmaster@statefarminsuranmce.com,
postmaster@statefarminsuranvce.com, postmaster@statefarminsuranve.com,
postmaster@statefarminsuranxce.com, postmaster@statefarminsursnce.com,
postmaster@statefarminsurtance.com, postmaster@statefarminsutance.com,
postmaster@statefarminsutrance.com, postmaster@statefarminsuurance.com,
postmaster@statefarminsuyrance.com, postmaster@statefarminsyrance.com,
postmaster@statefarminsyurance.com, postmaster@statefarminurance.com,
postmaster@statefarmisnurance.com, postmaster@statefarmjnsurance.com,
postmaster@statefarmknsurance.com, postmaster@statefarmminsurance.com,
postmaster@statefarmninsurance.com, postmaster@statefarmnisurance.com,
postmaster@statefarmynsurance.com, postmaster@statefarnminsurance.com,
postmaster@statefarrminsurance.com, postmaster@stateffarminsurance.com and
postmaster@staterfarm.com by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the National
Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent
Default.
On
June 2, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn
Marks Johnson as Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the
"Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision
based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN
Rules, the National Arbitration 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. The domain names that Respondent
registered, <astatefarminsurance.com>, <dstatefarminsurance.com>,
<sstatefarminsurance.com>, <stateefarminsurance.com>,
<statefarjinsurance.com>, <statefarmibsurance.com>, <statefarminasurance.com>,
<statefarmindsurance.com>, <statefarmindurance.com>, <statefarminnsurance.com>,
<statefarminsaurance.com>, <statefarminsdurance.com>,
<statefarminsiurance.com>, <statefarminsuarnce.com>, <statefarminsuerance.com>,
<statefarminsuirance.com>, <statefarminsuraance.com>,
<statefarminsurabce.com>, <statefarminsuramnce.com>, <statefarminsuranbce.com>,
<statefarminsurancc.com>, <statefarminsurancce.com>, <statefarmiinsurance.com>,
<statefarminsurancr.com>, <statefarminsurancve.com>, <statefarminsurancxe.com>,
<statefarminsuranec.com>, <statefarminsuranmce.com>, <statefarminsuranvce.com>,
<statefarminsuranve.com>, <statefarminsuranxce.com>, <statefarminsursnce.com>,
<statefarminsurtance.com>, <statefarminsutance.com>, <statefarminsutrance.com>,
<statefarminsuurance.com>, <statefarminsuyrance.com>,
<statefarminsyrance.com>, <statefarminsyurance.com>, <statefarminurance.com>,
<statefarmisnurance.com>, <statefarmjnsurance.com>, <statefarmknsurance.com>,
<statefarmminsurance.com>, <statefarmninsurance.com>,
<statefarmnisurance.com>, <statefarmynsurance.com>, <statefarnminsurance.com>,
<statefarrminsurance.com>, <stateffarminsurance.com>
and <staterfarm.com>, are confusingly similar to Complainant’s
STATE FARM INSURANCE and STATE FARM marks.
2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate
interests in the <astatefarminsurance.com>, <dstatefarminsurance.com>,
<sstatefarminsurance.com>, <stateefarminsurance.com>,
<statefarjinsurance.com>, <statefarmibsurance.com>, <statefarminasurance.com>,
<statefarmindsurance.com>, <statefarmindurance.com>, <statefarminnsurance.com>,
<statefarminsaurance.com>, <statefarminsdurance.com>,
<statefarminsiurance.com>, <statefarminsuarnce.com>, <statefarminsuerance.com>,
<statefarminsuirance.com>, <statefarminsuraance.com>,
<statefarminsurabce.com>, <statefarminsuramnce.com>, <statefarminsuranbce.com>,
<statefarminsurancc.com>, <statefarminsurancce.com>, <statefarmiinsurance.com>,
<statefarminsurancr.com>, <statefarminsurancve.com>, <statefarminsurancxe.com>,
<statefarminsuranec.com>, <statefarminsuranmce.com>, <statefarminsuranvce.com>,
<statefarminsuranve.com>, <statefarminsuranxce.com>, <statefarminsursnce.com>,
<statefarminsurtance.com>, <statefarminsutance.com>, <statefarminsutrance.com>,
<statefarminsuurance.com>, <statefarminsuyrance.com>,
<statefarminsyrance.com>, <statefarminsyurance.com>, <statefarminurance.com>,
<statefarmisnurance.com>, <statefarmjnsurance.com>, <statefarmknsurance.com>,
<statefarmminsurance.com>, <statefarmninsurance.com>,
<statefarmnisurance.com>, <statefarmynsurance.com>, <statefarnminsurance.com>,
<statefarrminsurance.com>, <stateffarminsurance.com>
and <staterfarm.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <astatefarminsurance.com>,
<dstatefarminsurance.com>, <sstatefarminsurance.com>,
<stateefarminsurance.com>, <statefarjinsurance.com>, <statefarmibsurance.com>,
<statefarminasurance.com>, <statefarmindsurance.com>,
<statefarmindurance.com>, <statefarminnsurance.com>, <statefarminsaurance.com>,
<statefarminsdurance.com>, <statefarminsiurance.com>,
<statefarminsuarnce.com>, <statefarminsuerance.com>, <statefarminsuirance.com>,
<statefarminsuraance.com>, <statefarminsurabce.com>, <statefarminsuramnce.com>,
<statefarminsuranbce.com>, <statefarminsurancc.com>, <statefarminsurancce.com>,
<statefarmiinsurance.com>, <statefarminsurancr.com>, <statefarminsurancve.com>,
<statefarminsurancxe.com>, <statefarminsuranec.com>, <statefarminsuranmce.com>,
<statefarminsuranvce.com>, <statefarminsuranve.com>, <statefarminsuranxce.com>,
<statefarminsursnce.com>, <statefarminsurtance.com>, <statefarminsutance.com>,
<statefarminsutrance.com>, <statefarminsuurance.com>,
<statefarminsuyrance.com>, <statefarminsyrance.com>, <statefarminsyurance.com>,
<statefarminurance.com>, <statefarmisnurance.com>, <statefarmjnsurance.com>,
<statefarmknsurance.com>, <statefarmminsurance.com>, <statefarmninsurance.com>,
<statefarmnisurance.com>, <statefarmynsurance.com>, <statefarnminsurance.com>,
<statefarrminsurance.com>, <stateffarminsurance.com>
and <staterfarm.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, is a nationally known company
that has been doing business under the STATE FARM mark since 1930. Complainant engages in business in both the
insurance and financial services industry and has established a nationally
recognized presence on televised and other media.
Complainant
registered the STATE FARM (Reg. No. 1,979,585 issued June 11, 1996) and STATE
FARM INSURANCE (Reg. No. 1,125,010 issued September 11, 1979) marks with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent
registered the disputed domain names between April 3 and May 2, 2005. The disputed domain names resolve to
websites that feature links to competing insurance companies.
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 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(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and
will draw such inferences as the Panel considers appropriate pursuant to
paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
Paragraph 4(a)
of the Policy requires Complainant to 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.
Complainant
established using extrinsic proof in this proceeding that it has established
rights in the STATE FARM and STATE FARM INSURANCE marks through registration
with the USPTO. See Men’s Wearhouse,
Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S.
trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently
distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Thomas P.
Culver Enters., D2001-0564 (WIPO June 18, 2001) (finding that successful
trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
creates a presumption of rights in a mark).
The
domain names that Respondent registered are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s STATE FARM and STATE FARM INSURANCE marks as the disputed domain
names are various typosquatted spellings of Complainant’s marks, incorporating
minor changes such as added or replaced letters. Additionally, the disputed domain names add the generic top-level
domain “.com” and omit the space between the terms in Complainant’s marks. Such alterations are not enough to overcome
a finding of confusing similarity between Respondent’s domain names and
Complainant’s marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Marriott Int'l, Inc. v.
Seocho,
FA 149187 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 28, 2003) (finding that the respondent's <marrriott.com> domain name was
confusingly similar to the complainant's MARRIOTT mark because
"Respondent's typosquatting, by
its definition, renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's
mark"); see also Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. Party Night, Inc., FA 114546 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 23, 2002) (finding the
disputed domain name was a simple misspelling of the complainant’s mark and was
a classic example of typosquatting, which “renders the domain name
confusingly similar to the altered famous mark”); see also Nev.
State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA
204063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“It has been established that
the addition of a generic top-level domain is irrelevant when considering
whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar under the Policy.”); see
also Hannover
Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu,
FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2001) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be
identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are impermissible in domain names and a
generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain
names”).
The
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant
established that it has rights to and interests in the marks contained within
the disputed domain names. Complainant
alleges that Respondent has no such rights or interests. Respondent did not
respond to the Complaint. Thus, the
Panel accepts all reasonable allegations and assertions set forth by
Complainant as true and accurate. See
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Bavarian AG, FA 110830 (Nat. Arb.
Forum June 17, 2002) (finding that in the absence of a response, the Panel is
free to make inferences from the very failure to respond and assign greater
weight to certain circumstances than it might otherwise do); see also Do the
Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a
respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount
to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertion in this regard.”).
Complainant’s
assertion that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain names is sufficient to require Respondent to come forward with proof to
the contrary. In not submitting a
response, Respondent failed to rebut this allegation. Thus, the Panel interprets Respondent’s failure to respond as
evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed
domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
See Parfums Christian Dior
v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not
submitting a Response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which
could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see
also Bank of Am. Corp. v.
McCall,
FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not
only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as
evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name.”).
Respondent is
using the confusingly similar domain names to operate websites that feature
links to competing insurance websites.
The Panel infers that Respondent earns click-through fees for diverting
Internet users to these competing websites.
Such competing use is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering
of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
See Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain
name to redirect Internet users to a financial services website, which competed
with the complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see
also Winmark Corp. v. In The Zone, FA 128652 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2002)
(finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain
name that used the complainant’s mark to redirect Internet users to a
competitor’s website).
Furthermore,
nothing in the record indicates that Respondent is either commonly known by the
disputed domain names or authorized to register domain names featuring
variations of Complainant’s STATE FARM and STATE FARM INSURANCE marks. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent has
not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc.
v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in the
respondent’s WHOIS information implies that the respondent is ‘commonly known
by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶
4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain
v. Com-Union Corp.,
D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a
license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name).
Moreover, the
fact that Respondent’s domain names are typosquatted variations of
Complainant’s marks is further evidence that Respondent lacks rights and
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(ii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that the respondent lacked rights and legitimate
interests in the disputed domain names because it "engaged in the practice of typosquatting by taking
advantage of Internet users who attempt to access Complainant's
<indymac.com> website but mistakenly misspell Complainant's mark by
typing the letter 'x' instead of the letter 'c'"); see also LTD
Commodities LLC v. Party Night, Inc., FA
165155 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2003) (finding that the <ltdcommadities.com>,
<ltdcommmodities.com> and <ltdcommodaties.com> disputed domain
names were typosquatted versions of the complainant's LTD COMMODITIES mark
and "Respondent's 'typosquatting' is evidence that Respondent lacks rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names").
The
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant
alleges that Respondent acted in bad faith in registering and using the
disputed domain names. Respondent is
using the confusingly similar domain names to operate websites that feature
links to competing insurance websites.
The Panel finds that such competing use constitutes disruption and is
evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA
94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the respondent acted in bad
faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the
complainant’s business); see also Puckett
v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent
diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation
of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
The Panel infers
that Respondent receives click-through fees through diverting consumers to
competing insurance providers. Because
Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark,
consumers accessing the disputed domain names may become confused as to
Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting websites. Thus, Respondent’s commercial use of the
disputed domain names constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Kmart v. Khan,
FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if the respondent
profits from its diversionary use of the complainant’s mark when the domain
name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails to contest the
Complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the domain name in
bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Am. Univ.
v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration
and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to
deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain
name is evidence of bad faith.”).
Furthermore,
Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual or constructive
knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STATE FARM and STATE FARM INSURANCE
marks due to Complainant’s registration of the marks with the USPTO. Moreover, the Panel infers that Respondent
registered the domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s marks due to
the obvious connection between the content featured and advertised on
Respondent’s websites and Complainant’s services. Registration of domain names that are confusingly similar
another’s mark despite actual or constructive knowledge of the mark holder’s
rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶
4(a)(iii). See Digi Int’l v. DDI
Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (“[T]here is a legal
presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of
Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively.”); see also Orange Glo
Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002) (“Complainant’s
OXICLEAN mark is listed on the Principal Register of the USPTO, a status that
confers constructive notice on those seeking to register or use the mark or any
confusingly similar variation thereof.”); see also Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger,
D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the link between the
complainant’s mark and the content advertised on the respondent’s website was
obvious, the respondent “must have known about Complainant’s mark when it
registered the subject domain name”).
Additionally,
the fact that Respondent’s domain names are merely typosquatted variations of
Complainant’s STATE FARM and STATE FARM INSURANCE marks is evidence that
Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(a)(iii). See Zone Labs, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 190613 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Oct. 15, 2003) (finding that the respondent registered and used the
<zonelarm.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(a)(iii) because the name was merely a typosquatted version of the
complainant's ZONEALARM mark); see also K.R. USA, Inc. v. So So Domains, FA 180624 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 18, 2003) (finding that the <philadelphiaenquirer.com>
and <tallahassedemocrat.com> domain names were typosquatted versions of
the complainant's THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER and TALLAHASSEE DEMOCRAT
marks. "Furthermore, [pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)] the very
practice of typosquatting, in which Respondent has engaged, has been deemed
behavior in bad faith.").
The
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <astatefarminsurance.com>, <dstatefarminsurance.com>,
<sstatefarminsurance.com>, <stateefarminsurance.com>,
<statefarjinsurance.com>, <statefarmibsurance.com>, <statefarminasurance.com>,
<statefarmindsurance.com>, <statefarmindurance.com>, <statefarminnsurance.com>,
<statefarminsaurance.com>, <statefarminsdurance.com>,
<statefarminsiurance.com>, <statefarminsuarnce.com>, <statefarminsuerance.com>,
<statefarminsuirance.com>, <statefarminsuraance.com>,
<statefarminsurabce.com>, <statefarminsuramnce.com>, <statefarminsuranbce.com>,
<statefarminsurancc.com>, <statefarminsurancce.com>, <statefarmiinsurance.com>,
<statefarminsurancr.com>, <statefarminsurancve.com>, <statefarminsurancxe.com>,
<statefarminsuranec.com>, <statefarminsuranmce.com>, <statefarminsuranvce.com>,
<statefarminsuranve.com>, <statefarminsuranxce.com>, <statefarminsursnce.com>,
<statefarminsurtance.com>, <statefarminsutance.com>, <statefarminsutrance.com>,
<statefarminsuurance.com>, <statefarminsuyrance.com>,
<statefarminsyrance.com>, <statefarminsyurance.com>, <statefarminurance.com>,
<statefarmisnurance.com>, <statefarmjnsurance.com>, <statefarmknsurance.com>,
<statefarmminsurance.com>, <statefarmninsurance.com>,
<statefarmnisurance.com>, <statefarmynsurance.com>, <statefarnminsurance.com>,
<statefarrminsurance.com>, <stateffarminsurance.com>
and <staterfarm.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from
Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: June 15, 2005.
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page
National Arbitration Forum