State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Bloomington, IL, USA
COMPLAINANT,

vs.

Rocky E. Faw, Charlotte, NC, USA
RESPONDENT.

DECISION
Claim Number: FA0006000094971

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME(s) 

The domain name at issue is “STATEFARMCLAIMSONLINE.COM”, registered with Melbourne It dba Internet Names Worldwide (“Internet Names Worldwide”).

PANELIST(s)

Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on 06/06/2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on 06/26/2000. 

On 06/06/2000, Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name “STATEFARMCLAIMSONLINE.COM” is registered with Internet Names Worldwide and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.

On 06/07/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of 06/27/2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via email, post and fax, and to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts by email.

On 06/27/2000, having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, The Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On 06/30/2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records in the case file, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that The Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Uniform 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 Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from the Respondent.

RELIEF SOUGHT

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.  The Respondent is not associated with the Complainant or the Complainant’s service marks.  The Respondent is not doing business under the domain names, nor is it commonly known under the domain names.  It is believed that the Respondent’s primary business is domain name speculation.

B. Respondent

            The Respondent submitted no response in this matter.

FINDINGS

The Complainant owns the U.S. trademark STATE FARM (first in use: 1930; registered 06/11/1996; No. 1,979,585) for underwriting and servicing auto, homeowner, life and fire insurance.  The Complainant also owns numerous other marks in the U.S., Canada, European Community, and Mexico incorporating the STATE FARM mark and logo.  The Complainant has also recently registered STATEFARM.COM and conducts Internet business under this domain name.

The Respondent registered the domain name “STATEFARMCLAIMSONLINE.COM”.  Entering the domain name on the Internet results in an “Error 404, server is unavailable” message. 

The Complainant attempted to contact the Respondent; however, the e-mail address provided in the registration information was not a legitimate e-mail address for the Respondent.  The Respondent also did not reply to the Complainant’s “cease and desist” letter, sent to the address of registration.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy (“Policy”) requires that the complainant must prove each of the following three elements to support a claim that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the 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 Complainant has offered exhibits in support of its claim and the assertions made therein; the Respondent has submitted no response in the matter.  The Respondent’s failure to dispute the allegations of the Complainant permits the inference that the Complainant’s allegations are true. See Hewlett-Packard Company v. Full System, FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000).  Further, the Respondent’s failure to respond leads one to believe that the Respondent knows that its website is misleading.  See Hewlett-Packard Company v. Full System, FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000).  Applying the Policy to the issue in this case furthers these inferences.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has rights to its mark, STATE FARM.  The mark is properly registered and well-known.  The Respondent’s use of the domain name in question infringes on the Complainant’s rights.  Adding the term “claimsonline” to the Complainant’s mark causes confusion to consumers looking for insurance claim services and compromises the integrity of the Complainant’s mark. See State Farm v. Bulldog, Inc., FA 94427 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2000) (finding that the disputed domain names, <statefarmcatteam.com >, <statefarmhail.com>, <statefarmhailrepair.com>,  <statefarmhailteam.com>, and <statefarmsavings.com>, all incorporate the STATE FARM mark and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant asserts Respondent has no rights to the domain name in question.

The Respondent is not commonly known by the Complainant’s famous mark.  Further, there is no evidence that the Respondent is involved in the insurance claim industry.  The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has not received rights from the Complainant to use the name in connection with its goods and services.  The Respondent has not developed the site.  From this, it is evident that the Respondent is not using the domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair purpose and is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.  Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)-(iii).  See Ziegenfelder Co. v. VMH Enterprises, Inc. D2000-0039 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (holding that failure to provide a product or service or develop the site demonstrates that the respondent has no established rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts Respondent acted and is acting in bad faith.

Prior to initiating this suit, the Complainant attempted to contact the Respondent seeking a transfer of the domain name in question.  No response was ever received as a result of the Complainant’s attempts to contact the Respondent at the address provided.  The Complainant attempted to contact the Respondent from records on file at the state Secretary of State’s office; however, no business incorporation papers have been filed with the State.  The Complainant contends that the information listed in the WHOIS database is inaccurate and purposefully misleading based on the illegitimate email address and intentional disregard of the correspondence in this issue.  Providing incomplete and/or false information in the WHOIS directory is evidence of bad faith in domain name disputes. See America Online, Inc. v. QTR Corp., FA 92016 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2000).

The Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s rights to the mark in question.  Registering such a famous domain name demonstrates the Respondent’s purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant and preventing them from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name.  This is evidence of bad faith.  Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), (iii).  See Expedia, Inc. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0137 (WIPO April 18, 2000) (holding that the Respondent registered domain name in bad faith because Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s trademark at the time it registered the domain name, given the widespread use of the Complainant’s website).

DECISION

Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), it is the decision of the panel that the requested relief be granted. 

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name, “STATEFARMCLAIMSONLINE.COM” be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson

               Dated: 07/12/2000

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page