State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Adam
Claim Number: FA1709001747659
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Adam (“Respondent”), United Kingdom.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <state-farm.claims>, registered with Uniregistrar Corp.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 6, 2017; the Forum received payment on September 6, 2017.
On September 11, 2017, Uniregistrar Corp confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <state-farm.claims> domain name is registered with Uniregistrar Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Uniregistrar Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Uniregistrar Corp 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 September 11, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 2, 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@state-farm.claims. Also on September 11, 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.
Respondent did not submit a formal response, but he did send some e-mails to the Forum, see below. Having received no formal response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 4, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is a nationally known insurance and financial services company. Complainant has continuously used the STATE FARM mark to promote its products and services mark since 1930 and has rights in the mark through registration in the United States in 2012.
According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it separates the terms of the STATE FARM mark with a hyphen and appends the relevant generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.claims” to the fully incorporated mark.
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its STATE FARM mark in any fashion, and Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent made no demonstrable preparations to use the domain name because it currently resolves to a blank webpage that merely states “Not much is going on here at the moment! Contact: a@5.uk.”
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the name to create the impression of association with Complainant to trade off the goodwill associated with the STATE FARM mark and to create initial interest confusion for individuals looking for information about Complainant. Respondent attempts to attract Internet traffic and commercially benefit from the goodwill of the STATE FARM mark by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website by using the marks of Complainant. Respondent also failed to make an active use of the domain name. Further, Respondent had actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark at the time of registration due to the fame of the STATE FARM mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. However, Respondent did send three e-mails to the Forum, stating in pertinent part:
Am happy to transfer the domain name to you, just let me know what you want me to do to transfer it.
…
As I previously stated, I am more than happy to transfer the domain name.
…
I’ve said on 2 occasions now that I am happy transfer to the domain name across to whoever wants it.
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.
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 the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.
See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <state-farm.claims> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: October 4, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page