State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. john pollock
Claim Number: FA1505001617794
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Sherri Dunbar of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois USA. Respondent is john pollock (“Respondent”), Washington, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarminsurancegroup.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 4, 2015; the Forum received payment on May 4, 2015.
On May 6, 2015, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <statefarminsurancegroup.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 May 8, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 28, 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@statefarminsurancegroup.com. Also on May 8, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 3, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Complainant has registered the STATE FARM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,979,585, registered June 11, 1996). The mark is in connection with underwriting and servicing auto, homeowners, life and fire insurance.
2. The <statefarminsurancegroup.com> domain name, registered on February 3, 2015, is confusingly similar to the STATE FARM mark because in contains the entire mark and adds the generic or descriptive phrase “insurance group” along with the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
3. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests. Respondent is not commonly known as the disputed domain name, nor is Respondent a licensee of Complainant.
4. Further, the domain name resolves to a blank website with a message reading, “Website Coming Soon!” which shows that Respondent has not made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name.
5. Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use. Respondent is attempting to commercially profit from a likelihood of confusion.
6. Also, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights. Respondent’s failure to use the disputed domain name signifies bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the STATE FARM mark. Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the <statefarminsurancegroup.com> domain name, and that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.
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.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. This allegation must be supported with a prima facie showing by Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). After a complainant successfully makes a prima facie case, a respondent is faced with the burden of proving it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. In Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007), the panel held that when a complainant produces a prima facie case, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known as the <statefarminsurancegroup.com> domain name, nor is Respondent in possession of licensing rights that would allow him to use the STATE FARM mark in domain names. The registrant of record for the disputed domain name is “john Pollock.” Moreover, the record is void of any evidence to indicate that Respondent is either commonly known by the disputed domain name or in possession of licensing rights. Thus, Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in dispute. See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name fails to consist of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant argues that Respondent has failed to actively use the domain name, or even display demonstrable preparations to use. To support this claim, Complainant has shown that the domain name resolves to a blank webpage with a message reading, “Website Coming Soon!” Failure to actively use a domain name, or failure to show demonstrable preparations to use the domain name, is insufficient to establish rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Apr. 12, 2007) (finding that the respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in a confusingly similar domain name that it had not made demonstrable preparations to use since its registration seven months prior to the complaint). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the STATE FARM mark. Due to the fame of Complainant's mark and Complainant’s numerous trademark registrations, the Panel easily concludes that Respondent had actual knowledge of the mark and Complainant's rights. Thus, the Panel holds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See The Way Int'l, Inc. v. Diamond Peters, D2003-0264 (WIPO May 29, 2003) ("As to constructive knowledge, the Panel takes the view that there is no place for such a concept under the Policy."); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration).
Lastly, Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name is additional evidence of Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 12, 2007) (holding that non-use of a confusingly similar domain name for over seven months constitutes bad faith registration and use).
The Panel finds 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 <statefarminsurancegroup.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: June 11, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page