Allstate Insurance Company v. Kamran Iqbal
Claim Number: FA1501001601334
Complainant is Allstate Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Richard S. Stockton of Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., Illinois, USA. Respondent is Kamran Iqbal (“Respondent”), Pakistan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <allstateleads.com>, registered with OnlineNIC, 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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 22, 2015; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on January 22, 2015.
On January 22, 2015, OnlineNIC, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <allstateleads.com> domain name is registered with OnlineNIC, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OnlineNIC, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OnlineNIC, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On January 23, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 12, 2015 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@allstateleads.com. Also on January 23, 2015, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 18, 2015 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson, 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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
1. Complainant has registered the ALLSTATE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 717,683, registered June 27, 1961). The mark is used on or in connection with insurance services, investment advisory services, mortgage lending, and financial services. The <allstateleads.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the ALLSTATE mark because the domain name encompasses the mark and adds the generic term “leads” along with the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known as the domain name, nor has Respondent even held licensing rights to use ALLSTATE in domain names. Further, the domain name resolves to a website wherein Internet users are potentially linked to services that compete with those offered under the mark. Such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
3.Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s use of the ALLSTATE mark on the resolving webpage, along with potentially linking Internet users to competing services, disrupts Complainant’s business. Respondent is commercially benefitting from the use of a confusingly similar domain name. Also, Respondent was on constructive notice, if not actual notice, of Complainant’s rights in its well-known ALLSTATE mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is Allstate Insurance Company of Northbrook, IL, USA. Complainant is the owner of numerous domestic and international registrations for the mark ALLSTATE, and related marks, which it has continuously used since at least as early as 1961 in connection with its provision of goods and services in the insurance, investment, and financial business realm.
Respondent is Kamran Iqbal of Lahore, Pakistan. Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as Alameda, CA, USA. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on or about February 17, 2014.
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."
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.
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.”).
Complainant has registered the ALLSTATE mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 717,683, registered June 27, 1961). The mark is used on and in connection with insurance services, investment advisory services, mortgage lending, and financial services. The Panel finds that registration with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a trademark. See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [Complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, Complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Complainant argues that the <allstateleads.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the ALLSTATE mark. Complainant notes that the domain name encompasses the mark and adds the generic term “leads.” The Panel notes that the addition of a generic term to a domain name that encompasses a complainant’s mark fails to reduce the likelihood of confusing similarity. See Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. Rana, FA 304696 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2004) (finding that the addition of the generic term “collection” to Complainant’s HARRY POTTER mark failed to distinguish the domain name from the mark). The Panel also notes that the addition of a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from the mark. See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark). The Panel here finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
The Complainant has proven this element.
The Panel recognizes that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name). The Complainant has met this burden.
Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor has Respondent ever held licensing rights in regards to using the ALLSTATE mark in domain names. The Panel notes that “Kamran Iqbal” is listed as the registrant of record and that the record is void of any evidence to indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name or has obtained licensing rights from Complainant to use its mark. Where a respondent is not commonly known as the disputed domain name and has no right to use the mark in domain names, they cannot have rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name); Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark). The Panel here finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant states that Respondent’s intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website through the use of a confusingly similar domain name, as well as Respondent’s use of the domain name to host a website potentially linking users to competing service, evidences a lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Panel notes that the <allstateleads.com> domain name resolves to a website displaying Complainant’s mark in connection with what appears to be the offering of financial services offered by Complainant under the ALLSTATE mark. The Panel finds that Respondent is attempting to divert Internet users, who are seeking Complainant, to some competing provider, and that such use is neither a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
As the Respondent has not provided a response to this action the Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain.
The Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant asserts that Respondent is disrupting its business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Respondent uses the ALLSTATE mark on the resolving website, wherein Internet users (who presumably were searching for Complainant) are potentially linked to competing services. The Panel notes that the <allstateleads.com> domain name resolves to a website that allows Internet users to actually link to competing services, which supports a finding that Respondent is engaging in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) bad faith. See Univ. of Texas Sys. v. Smith, FA 1195696 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2008) (finding that using the resolving website to divert Internet users to the complainant’s competitors constituted bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Complainant argues that Respondent is intending to commercially benefit from a likelihood of confusion. Complainant claims that because the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark, Internet users will view the resolving website and think that it is somehow affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant. Complainant maintains that the resulting web traffic generates leads to a commercial benefit for Respondent. Respondent’s implication in causing a likelihood of confusion while commercially benefitting as a result, establishes that Respondent is engaging in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith. See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain).
The Complainant has proven this element.
Because the Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <allstateleads.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: March 4, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page