Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Bloomington, IL ("Complainant") represented by Janice K. Forrest, of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Respondent is Davis Alliance, Conroe, TX ("Respondent").

The domain names at issue are <statefarmmoldinsurance.com>, and <statefarmmoldinsurance.net>, registered with Internet Domain Registrars.

On October 19, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James P. Buchele as Panelist.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.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on September 10, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 11, 2001.

On September 18, 2001, Internet Domain Registrars confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <statefarmmoldinsurance.com> and <statefarmmoldinsurance.net> are registered with Internet Domain Registrars and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet Domain Registrars has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet Domain Registrars 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 18, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 9, 2001 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@statefarmmoldinsurance.com, statefarmmoldinsurance.net by e-mail.

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.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 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 the Respondent to the Complainant.

A. Complainant

The <statefarmmoldinsurance.com>, and <statefarmmoldinsurance.net> domain names are identical to the Complainant’s mark.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to <statefarmmoldinsurance.com> and <statefarmmoldinsurance.net>.

Respondent registered <statefarmmoldinsurance.com> and <statefarmmoldinsurance.net> in bad faith.

No timely Response was received. On Sunday October 21, 2001 the Forum was advised by copy of an email signed by Keith Davis that Alliance had transferred the name to State Farm.

Complainant is a nationally known company that has done both insurance and financial business under the name STATE FARM since 1930. Complainant has several U.S. and Canadian patents for STATE FARM and STATE FARM INSURANCE marks.

Complainant has developed their web site <statefarm.com> to offer substantial information on its insurance and financial services, agents, and products.

Complainant sent a letter to Respondent on August 9, 2001 requesting that he transfer the domain names to Complainant without purchasing them. Respondent answered that he would not transfer the names without compensation from Complainant, and that his only purpose for owning the domain names was to sell them. Respondent ‘s websites were vacant except for a message to contact Respondent.

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 the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 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.

Respondent’s domain names <statefarmmoldinsurance.com> and <statefarmmoldinsurance.net> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark. The addition of generic words like "old" or descriptive words like "insurance" do not properly distinguish the domain name from the Complainant’s mark. See State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Kaufman, JIT Consulting, FA 94719 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 24, 2000) (finding hat <statefarmdirect.com> is confusingly similar to STATE FARM mark); see also 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 Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower, Inc., D2000-0022 (WIPO Mar. 3, 2000) (finding that four domain names that added the descriptive words "fashion" or "cosmetics" after the trademark were confusingly similar to the trademark).

Furthermore, the addition of the word "insurance" to Complainant’s mark makes the domain names confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark because State Farm provides insurance services. See State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Advisory Serv., Inc., FA 94662 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2000).

The Panel fins that Policy 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in <statefarmmoldinsurance.com> and <statefarmmoldinsurance.net> because it did not use it for a bona fide offering of goods. Instead, Respondent passively held the domain names. See Melbourne IT Ltd. v. Stafford, D2000-1167 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where there is no proof that the Respondent made preparations to use the domain name or one like it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services before notice of the domain name dispute, the domain name did not resolve to a website, and the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name).

Respondent does not have legitimate rights or interests in <statefarmmoldinsurance.com> and <statefarmmoldinsurance.net> because Respondent was not commonly known by the domain names. See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark); see also Strojirny v. Rautiainen, D2000-1394 (WIPO Dec. 20, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where Respondent is not commonly known by the distinct ADAST mark and has made no use of the domain name in question).

Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain names at issue because Respondent’s passive holding of <statefarmmoldinsurance.com> and <statefarmmoldinsurance.net> is not a legitimate fair use of the domain names. See BMW AG v. Loophole, D2000-1156 (WIPO Oct. 26, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where Respondent made no actual use of the domain name).

The Panel finds that Policy 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Respondent’s admission that its sole purpose for owning the domain name was to sell them, coupled with Respondent’s insistence that Complainant buy the domain names for a fee is evidence of bad faith. See Little Six, Inc v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001) (finding Respondent's offer to sell the domain name at issue to Complainant is bad faith); see also Wembley Nat’l Stadium Ltd. v. Thomson, D2000-1233 (WIPO Nov. 16, 2000) (finding bad faith based on the apparent willingness of the Respondent to sell the domain name in issue from the outset, albeit not at a price reflecting only the costs of registering and maintaining the name). Mr. Davis’s October 21, 2001 communication that the name had been transferred to State Farm requested a check for $5,000.

Furthermore, the Respondent’s passive use of the domain names is evidence of bad faith. See Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v. Sallen & Sallen Enter., D2000-0715 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that mere passive holding of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner’s conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale); see also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

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 the requested relief shall be hereby granted.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain names <statefarmmoldinsurance.com> and <statefarmmoldinsurance.net> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.