State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Continental Alliance Corp.
Claim Number: FA0609000795458
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Janice
K. Forrest, of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarmespanol.com>, registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc.
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.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 13, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 14, 2006.
On September 14, 2006, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <statefarmespanol.com> domain name is registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Go Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On September 15, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 5, 2006 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@statefarmespanol.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 11 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <statefarmespanol.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarmespanol.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <statefarmespanol.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, is a nationally known insurance and financial
services company that has been doing business under the STATE FARM mark since
at least 1930. Complainant has used its
mark extensively since that time, and holds a registration with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the STATE FARM mark (Reg. No.
1,979,585 issued June 11, 1996).
Additionally, Complainant operates a website at the
<statefarm.com> domain name, which contains information on Complainant in
both the English and Spanish languages.
Respondent registered the <statefarmespanol.com> domain name on January 8, 2006. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays links to third-party websites, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant, as well as displaying a general offer that the domain name may be for sale.
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 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 (Nat. Arb. 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.”).
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 Complainant’s registration with the USPTO sufficiently establishes Complainant’s rights in the STATE FARM mark. See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) ("Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.").
Respondent’s <statefarmespanol.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark as it contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety with the addition of the word “espanol.” The Panel finds that the addition of a Spanish term is used to attract potential Spanish-speaking Internet users attempting to locate Complainant’s website and services, and as such, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also L.L. Bean, Inc. v. ShopStarNetwork, FA 95404 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000) (finding that combining the generic word “shop” with the complainant’s registered mark “llbean” does not circumvent the complainant’s rights in the mark nor avoid the confusing similarity aspect of the ICANN Policy).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
has been satisfied.
Complainant initially must establish that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests with respect to the <statefarmespanol.com> domain name. However, once Complainant demonstrates a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifts, and Respondent must prove that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s STATE FARM mark, and that Respondent is not associated with Complainant in any way. Respondent’s WHOIS information also does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the <statefarmespanol.com> domain name. In RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001), the panel found that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) required a showing that a respondent was commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail. See Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <statefarmespanol.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The evidence on record indicates that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website that displays hyperlinks to third-party websites, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant, presumably for commercial gain through the earning of click-through fees. The Panel finds that such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark, websites where the respondent presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the Policy); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Dot Stop, FA 145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to its own website, which contained a series of hyperlinks to unrelated websites, was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
The Panel finds that Respondent is using the <statefarmespanol.com> domain name to
commercially benefit from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s name and
mark to host a website that contains hyperlinks to third-party websites. Furthermore, Respondent’s disputed domain name
is capable of creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source and
affiliation of Complainant with the disputed domain name. The Panel thus finds bad faith registration
and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Warren, FA 204147 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (“Although Complainant’s principal website
is <century21.com>, many Internet users are likely to use search engines
to find Complainant’s website, only to be mislead to Respondent’s website at
the <century21realty.biz> domain name, which features links for competing
real estate websites. Therefore, it is
likely that Internet users seeking Complainant’s website, but who end up at
Respondent’s website, will be confused as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website.”); see also Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's
prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to
Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from
the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”).
Additionally, the Panel finds that Respondent’s general
offer that the disputed domain name may be for sale evidences bad faith
registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Bank of Am.
Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access,
FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name
registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad
faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”); see also Am.
Anti-Vivisection Soc’y v. “Infa dot Net” Web Serv., FA 95685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 6, 2000)
(finding that “general offers to sell the domain name, even if no certain price
is demanded, are evidence of 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 <statefarmespanol.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: October 24, 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page