State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. James Smith
Claim Number: FA0702000924536
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
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <renostatefarm.com>, <renostatefarm.net>, <statefarmreno.com> and <statefarmreno.net>, 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.
Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On February 27, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 19, 2007 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@renostatefarm.com, postmaster@renostatefarm.net, postmaster@statefarmreno.com and postmaster@statefarmreno.net by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
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. Respondent’s <renostatefarm.com>, <renostatefarm.net>, <statefarmreno.com> and <statefarmreno.net> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <renostatefarm.com>, <renostatefarm.net>, <statefarmreno.com> and <statefarmreno.net> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <renostatefarm.com>, <renostatefarm.net>, <statefarmreno.com> and <statefarmreno.net> 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, inter alia, offers insurance products and services. In connection with the provision of these services, Complainant has registered a number of trade and service marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) including the STATE FARM mark (Reg. No. 1,979,585 issued June 11, 1996).
Respondent registered the disputed domain names on
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.
Complainant asserts rights in the STATE FARM mark through
registration with the USPTO. The Panel
finds that Complainant’s timely registration and subsequent use of the STATE
FARM mark is sufficient to establish rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(i). See Vivendi Universal Games v.
XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant further asserts that
the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain names contain
Complainant’s STATE FARM mark in its totality and include the geographic
identifier “
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
In instances where Complainant has made a prima facie case under Policy ¶
4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to set forth concrete evidence that
it does possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name. See Compagnie Generale des
Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO
Respondent is using the disputed domain names to resolve to
a website featuring links to websites that compete with Complainant’s
business. The Panel finds that such use
is neither a bona fide offering of
goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the
complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a
series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not
a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Ultimate
Elecs., Inc. v. Nichols, FA 195683 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Oct. 27, 2003) (finding that the respondent's “use of the domain
name (and Complainant’s mark) to sell products in competition with Complainant
demonstrates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the name”).
Complainant maintains that Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain names. A review of Respondent’s WHOIS registration information indicates that the registrant of the disputed domain names is “James Smith.” Lacking information likely to point to a different conclusion, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use); see also Gambro AB v. Family Health & Wellness Ctr., D2001-0447 (WIPO May 25, 2001) (finding that the respondent did not submit any evidence to support its suggestion that its employee was known by the nickname “Gambro”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect,
presumably with the intent of obtaining financial gain, unsuspecting Internet
users to a website featuring sponsored links to websites operated by
Complainant’s competitors. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use constitutes an
attraction for commercial gain, which evinces registration and use in bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers links to websites that directly compete with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that such use constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and evinces registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites); see also Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THE FOREGOING:
On
Michael Houle, Domain Dispute Case Coordinator of the National Arbitration
Forum:
They have my permission to take the web names – I don’t have
time to mess with all this – that is why I did not respond – I am
a little to (sic) busy for all this nonsense.
Thanks,
James Smith
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <renostatefarm.com>, <renostatefarm.net>, <statefarmreno.com> and <statefarmreno.net> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: March 30, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum