State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Jordan Levinson d/b/a N.A.
Claim Number: FA0703000933913
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 <statefarminsurrance.com>, registered with Active Insider, 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.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On March 15, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 4, 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@statefarminsurrance.com 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <statefarminsurrance.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM INSURANCE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarminsurrance.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <statefarminsurrance.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 well-known company in the
insurance and financial industry.
Complainant has established a recognized presence on television and
other media. In connection with its
financial and insurance products and services, Complainant has registered
numerous marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”),
including STATE FARM (Reg. No. 1,979,585 issued June 11, 1996) and STATE FARM
INSURANCE (Reg. No. 1,125,010 issued September 11, 1979).
Respondent registered the <statefarminsurrance.com>
domain name 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 has established rights in the STATE FARM INSURANCE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its
registration of the mark with the USPTO.
See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs.,
FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent’s <statefarminsurrance.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM INSURANCE mark because the domain name fully
incorporates Complainant’s mark, merely omits the spaces between the words,
adds an extra “r” to misspell “insurance,” and adds the generic top-level
domain “.com.” The removal of spaces and
the addition of a generic top-level domain are entirely functional and
therefore irrelevant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
analysis. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25,
2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does
not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is
identical or confusingly similar); see
also Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb.
Forum
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the <statefarminsurrance.com>
domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its
allegations, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights
or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Because Respondent failed to respond to the
Complaint, the Panel assumes that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name. See G.D.
Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding
that, where the complainant has asserted that respondent does not have rights
or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on
respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion); see
also Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent is using the <statefarminsurrance.com> domain name, which is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE
FARM INSURANCE mark, to divert Internet users to a website, which contains links to websites
that sell insurance services that compete with Complainant. Such use of the disputed domain name does not
constitute a bona fide offering of
goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitmate noncommercial or fair use of
the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v.
BargainDomainNames.com, FA 104580 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2002) (“Respondent is not using the disputed
domain name in connection with a bona
fide offering of goods and services because Respondent is using the domain
name to divert Internet users to <visual.com>, where services that
compete with Complainant are advertised.”); see
also Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a
bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use because the respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a
website that offered services that competed with those offered by the
complainant under its marks).
Complainant asserts that
Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s STATE FARM INSURANCE
mark and that Respondent is not associated with, affiliated with, or sponsored
by Complainant in any way. Furthermore,
Respondent’s WHOIS information, as well as other information in the record,
does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the <statefarminsurrance.com> domain
name. Therefore, the Panel finds that
Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb.
Forum
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is using the disputed domain name, which is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM
INSURANCE mark, to operate a commercial website containing links to
various third-party products and services, including insurance products and
services in direct competition with Complainant. Because it appears that Respondent has
registered and is using the <statefarminsurrance.com>
domain name for the primary purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business, the
Panel finds such use indicates bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Disney
Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly
similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's
website. It is a reasonable inference
that Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or
create confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶
4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”); 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)).
Respondent is using the <statefarminsurrance.com>
domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, to divert
Internet users seeking Complainant’s insurance and financial-related products
and services to a website containing links to competing products and services. The Panel infers that Respondent earns
click-through fees for diverting Internet users to third-party websites. Therefore, Respondent is profiting from the
confusing similarity between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s mark,
and taking advantage of the goodwill associated with the mark. Use of the disputed domain name for this
purpose suggests bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <statefarminsurrance.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: April 11, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum