State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Sal Avallone / Salerno Service Station
Claim Number: FA1702001717543
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Sherri Dunbar of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Sal Avallone / Salerno Service Station (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <statefarmclaims.center>, <statefarmclaims.direct>, and <statefarmclaims.repair>, registered with eNom, Inc.
The undersigned certifies he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 16, 2017; the Forum received payment on February 16, 2017.
On February 21, 2017, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <statefarmclaims.center>, <statefarmclaims.direct>, and <statefarmclaims.repair> domain names are registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, 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 February 22, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 14, 2017 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@statefarmclaims.center, postmaster@statefarmclaims.direct, postmaster@statefarmclaims.repair. Also on February 22, 2017, 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 March 23, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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. 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 Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS
This Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds: UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix).
State Farm Trademark Rights to the Name “State Farm” and “State Farm Insurance”
State Farm is a nationally known company that has been doing business under the name “State Farm” since 1930. In 1999 State Farm opened a Federally Chartered Bank known as State Farm Bank. State Farm engages in business in both the insurance and the financial services industry. State Farm also has established a nationally recognized presence on televised and other media.
State Farm first began using the “State Farm” trademark in 1930 and registered it with the Patent and Trademark Office on June 11, 1996 and registered “State Farm Insurance” on September 11, 1979. State Farm has also registered with the Patent and Trademark Office the following marks that all include the phrase “State Farm” including, but not limited to,:
the State Farm Insurance 3 oval logo; State Farm, State Farm Bank, State Farm Bank logo, State Farm Bayou Classic, State Farm Catastrophe Services, State Farm Companies Foundation, State Farm Mutual Funds, State Farm Dollars, State Farm Green Space, State Farm Red Magazine
In Canada State Farm has registered the State Farm 3 oval logo; State Farm; State Farm Companies Foundation; State Farm Insurance, StateFarm.com, StateFarm.ca, and others. In the European Community State Farm and the State Farm 3 oval logo is registered. In Mexico the State Farm 3 oval logo, State Farm and State Farm Insurance are registered. The domain name registered by Respondent incorporates the State Farm registered trademark, “State Farm” and is confusingly similar to State Farm registered marks.
For over 70 years State Farm has expended substantial time, effort and funds to develop the good will associated with the name “State Farm” as well as to promote and develop its other trademarks. State Farm does not allow unauthorized parties to use its marks as part of their Internet domain names.
State Farm on the Internet
State Farm developed its Internet web presence in 1995 using the domain name statefarm.com. At its web site, State Farm offers detailed information relating to a variety of topics that include its insurance and financial service products, consumer information, and information about its independent contractor agents. State Farm has expanded substantial time, effort and funds to develop its web site as a primary source of Internet information for the products, services and information provided by State Farm.
Conduct on Part of Respondent
In December of 2016, it was brought to the attention of State Farm that Complainant’s trademark "State Farm" had been registered as part of the domain names:
StateFarmClaims.center
StateFarmClaims.direct
StateFarmClaims.repair
The domain name StateFarmClaims.center resolves to a webpage with click-through links to various companies/products, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant.
The domain name StateFarmClaims.direct resolves to a parked webpage with no content.
The domain name StateFarmClaims.repair resolves to a webpage containing a phone number and link misrepresented as being Complainant.
On December 27, 2016, a cease and desist letter was sent by Complainant’s Intellectual Property Administrator via email to Respondent.
On January 23, 2017, another cease and desist letter was sent to Respondent via email; however, there was no response from Respondent.
Respondent Has No Legitimate Interest in the Domain Names
Because of the substantial efforts of State Farm, the public associates the phrase “State Farm” with the owner of the servicemark “State Farm.” The State Farm mark is distinctive and has acquired secondary meaning. The domain names at issue are confusingly similar to the State Farm servicemark that it has been using since 1930 and to other State Farm registered marks. Moreover, the domain names are confusingly similar to products, services or information that State Farm offers generally to the public as well as on its web sites.
Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not associated with, affiliated with or sponsored by State Farm, the owner of the servicemark "State Farm." State Farm did not authorize Respondent to register the domain names or to use the State Farm trademark for Respondent’s business purposes.
Respondent is not commonly known under the domain names StateFarmClaims.center; StateFarmClaims.direct, or StateFarmClaims.repair. It is believed that Respondent has never been known by or performed business under the domain names at issue. Respondent does not possess independent intellectual property rights in the names. In addition, State Farm does not have a contractual arrangement with Respondent that would allow them to offer services under the State Farm name.
State Farm believes that Respondent registered the names to create the impression of association with State Farm, its agents, products, sponsorships, and services; to trade off the good will associated with the State Farm name; and/or to create initial interest confusion for individuals looking for information about State Farm.
Respondent Has Acted in Bad Faith
It is clear that the names registered by Respondent are confusingly similar to State Farm trademarks. Indeed, the names include the State Farm registered mark "State Farm.” These domains are clearly intended to attract individuals seeking information on State Farm and create customer confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the sites.
State Farm has filed numerous complaints relating to its domain names under the ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Process. The arbitrators have consistently found that the use of a State Farm trademark in a domain name, whether or not additional language, characters or hyphens are added to the State Farm name, is confusingly similar to State Farm trademarks and that such registrations have been done in bad faith. (See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Advisory Services, Inc., FA94662 (Forum June 8, 2000), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bulldog, Inc., FA94427 (Forum, May 27, 2000), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. I & B, FA94719 (Forum June 8, 2000), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. JIT Consulting, FA94335 (Forum April 24, 2000), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Life en Theos, FA94663 (Forum June 1, 2000), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Try Harder & Company, FA94730 (Forum June 15, 2000), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. J & B, Inc., FA94802 (Forum June 13, 2000), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Richard Pierce, FA94808 (Forum June 6, 2000), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. HPR, FA94829 (Forum June 22, 2000), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Dean Gagnon, FA0710001087389 (Forum, November 16, 2007), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jung Tae Young, FAFA0710001087458 (Forum, November 20, 2007), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Richard Pompilio, FAFA0710001092410 (Forum, November 20, 2007).
As in the cases above, Respondent has no legitimate claim in the domain names at issue. In addition, the facts in evidence demonstrate that Respondent has registered and is using the names in bad faith.
In accordance with 15 U.S.C. §1125(d) Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names was in bad faith in that:
a) Respondent has never been known by the name “State Farm.” Respondent has never traded under the name “State Farm.” Respondent has not acquired a trademark or other intellectual property rights in the domain names in question. Moreover, Respondent has not registered the names in question with the Secretary of State in the state in which it does business or filed incorporation papers with respect to the same. This obvious lack of right to use the names in question shows bad faith registration and use.
b) Despite having registered the domain names StateFarmClaims.center; StateFarmClaims.direct, and StateFarmClaims.repair, Respondent is not authorized to sell products, engage in sponsorships or services for or on behalf of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, its affiliates or subsidiaries and is not an independent contractor agent of State Farm. Registering a domain name for products and services that it does not have authority to offer, shows that Respondent has acted in bad faith.
c) While Respondent registered the domain names at issue, giving the impression that interested individuals will receive information regarding State Farm, the fact is individuals are sent to a web page with click-through links to various companies/products, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant, a parked web page with no content, and a web page which misleads users to believe they are contacting State Farm. The use of a trademark to generate business in other fashions reflects that Respondent has acted in bad faith.
d) Respondent is not using, nor are there any demonstrable preparations to use the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. As of the date of this Complaint, there was no legitimate content associated with the names and no demonstrable indication that legitimate content would be forthcoming. Even if Respondent did put information on its websites, its content along with the proposed domain names, would be in direct conflict with information State Farm already provides and would cause confusion to potential customers. Failure to resolve the domain names to legitimate content indicates that Respondent has no legitimate reason for having registered the names and demonstrates that it has registered and is using the names in bad faith. See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Forum June 11, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of a domain name to redirect internet users to websites unrelated to a complainant’s mark is not a bona fide use under Policy ¶4(c )(i); see also Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶4(c )(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant).
e) Respondent’s use of “StateFarmClaims.center” domain name constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(a)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use); see also Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use where a respondent used the disputed domain name to operate a commercial search engine with links to the complainant’s competitors).
f) Respondent’s use of “StateFarmClaims.direct” domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use in that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. See Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Sech, FA 893427 (Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make active use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated that the respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith); see also Pirelli & C.S.P.A. v. Tabriz, FA 9211798 (Forum Apr. 12, 2007) (holding that non-use of a confusingly similar domain name for over seven months constitutes bad faith registration and use).
g) Respondent has been sent Complainant’s cease and desist letter for notification of Respondent’s unauthorized use of the names in question. Failure to respond with legitimate information for use or intention to use the names and then failure to comply with Complainant’s cease and desist request demonstrates it has registered and is using the names in bad faith.
g) Respondent registered its domain names on December 9, 2016. State Farm registered its domain name “statefarm.com” on May 24, 1995. Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s long-term use of the trademark “State Farm,” “State Farm Insurance” and the long-term use of the domain name “statefarm.com.” Respondent’s registration of the domain names was intended to be in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. However, Respondent sent an email reading:
“Good Day, my website advertiser had bought these domains that had brand names in it .
i would like to delete or disown the domains asap and am currently working on it
i do not need these domains ..
i hope to resolve this issue asap.”
(1) the domain names registered by Respondent are 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 names; and
(3) the domain names have been registered and are being used 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 Complainant prove the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(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(f), 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 (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 claims rights in the STATE FARM mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,979,585, registered June 11, 1996). Registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority for that matter) suffices to demonstrate rights in a mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (concluding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO). Complainant’s registration of the STATE FARM mark with the USPTO establishes rights in the mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Complainant claims the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the STATE FARM mark because all of them contains the mark in its entirety—less the space—merely adding the term “claims” and one of the gTLDs “.center,” “.direct,” or “.repair.” A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, a space is a prohibited character in a domain name and its omission must be disregarded under a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis. See Gianvito Rossi SRL Unipersonale v. david backhumn, FA 1628059 (Forum Aug. 12, 2015) (declaring, “Domain name syntax prohibits spaces in a domain name, so their absence must be disregarded when comparing a mark with a disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(i).”). The disputed domain names are identical to the STATE FARM mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case 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 has rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (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); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant claims Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the STATE FARM mark in any way. Where there is no response, the WHOIS and common sense allow the Panel to decide Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(ii)). Respondent used a privacy service to register the domain names, but Respondent’s true name was revealed as a result of the commencement of this proceeding. The current WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Sal Avallone” at “Salerno Service Station.” That bears no obvious relationship to any of the disputed domain names. Nothing in the record indicates Respondent was authorized to register a domain name using Complainant’s mark. This supports a finding Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain names.
Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names is evinced by their failure to use the names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, <statefarmclaims.center> resolves to a webpage with click-through links to various companies/products, some of which compete with Complainant (presumably pay to click links); <statefarmclaims.direct> resolves to a parked webpage with no content; and <statefarmclaims.repair> resolves to a webpage containing an 800 phone number (“Operators standing by now”) and a link misrepresented as belonging to Complainant. None of this constitutes a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) or (iii).
Using a disputed domain name to link to Complainant’s competitors does not constitute rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) or (iii). See CheapCaribbean.com, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1411001589962 (Forum Jan. 1, 2015) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <cheepcaribbean.com> name to promote links in competition with Complainant’s travel agency services does not fall within Policy ¶4(c)(i)’s bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it amount to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use described in Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”). Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarmclaims.center> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) and (iii).
Failure to make active use of a domain name likewise does not indicate any rights or legitimate interests in the name pursuant to Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) or (iii). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii)). Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in <statefarmclaims.direct> under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) and (iii).
Using a disputed domain name to attempt to pass oneself off as Complainant does not create rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶4(a)(ii). See Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (“Because [the] respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the <mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”) Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in <statefarmclaims.repair> pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
Furthermore, Respondent did not acquire any rights or legitimate interests simply by registering the domain names using a privacy service. Respondent did nothing to publicly associate itself with the domain names. Likewise, the legal owner (the privacy service) claims no rights in the domain names because it only holds bare legal title for the beneficial owner.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant claims Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of <statefarmclaims.center> is clear because it links to Complainant’s competitors. Using a disputed domain name to link to a complainant’s competitors is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶¶4(b)(iii) and (iv). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Niang, huai, FA1412001594788 (Forum Jan. 16, 2015) (“The at-issue domain name’s website includes advertisements for third parties, some which may sell insurance and banking services similar to those offered by Complainant. Using the at-issue domain name to display competing advertisements disrupts Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iii)); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA1504001615034 (Forum June 4, 2015) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <capitaloneonebank.com> domain name to display links to the complainant’s competitors, such as Bank of America, Visa, Chase and American Express constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv)). The <statefarmclaims.center> domain resolves to a site displaying pay per click links to third parties, some of which compete with Complainant. Respondent registered and used <statefarmclaims.center> in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Complainant claims Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the <statefarmclaims.direct> domain name further demonstrates its bad faith. Failure to make an active use of a disputed domain name indicates a respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Sech, FA 893427 (Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make active use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated that the respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith). The <statefarmclaims.direct> domain does not resolve to an active webpage (and there is no suggestion it is being used otherwise, such as an email server or an eCommerce portal). Respondent registered and used <statefarmclaims.direct> in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
Complainant claims its long-term use of the STATE FARM mark and the legitimate <statefarm.com> domain name means Respondent knew of Complainant and Complainant’s rights in the mark. It seems clear Respondent lives within Complainant’s service area. Complainant has customers that need their cars repaired with the proceeds of Complainant’s auto insurance. It does not take much to imagine Respondent wanted to pick up some of that business (especially since Respondent claims the domain names were bought by his “website advertiser”). Respondent is responsible for the acts of his agents (even though he did not realize the acts had been taken). Respondent registered the disputed domain names 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).
Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain names using a privacy service. In the commercial context, this gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of bad faith registration and use. Respondent has done nothing to rebut that presumption. It seems clear Respondent used Complainant’s mark to advertise his business.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered the <statefarmclaims.center>, <statefarmclaims.direct>, and <statefarmclaims.repair> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Thursday, March 30, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page