State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Yabar Gulia
Claim Number: FA1710001752382
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("Complainant"), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Yabar Gulia ("Respondent"), Pakistan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarmr.loan>, registered with NameCheap, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 5, 2017; the Forum received payment on October 5, 2017.
On October 6, 2017, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <statefarmr.loan> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 October 9, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 30, 2017 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@statefarmr.loan. Also on October 9, 2017, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 November 3, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is a nationally known company engaged in the insurance and financial services industries. Complainant began using the STATE FARM mark in 1930, and owns various U.S. registrations for STATE FARM and related marks, as well as trademark registrations in Canada, Mexico, and the European Community.
The disputed domain name <statefarmr.loan> was registered using a privacy registration service in July 2017. The domain name initially resolved to a web page featuring a college search tool; it currently displays a web server error message. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; that Respondent is not associated with, affiliated with, or sponsored by Complainant; and that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to register the disputed domain name or use Complainant's mark for business purposes.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <statefarmr.loan> is confusingly similar to Complainant's STATE FARM mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and has been 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 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(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.").
The disputed domain name <statefarmr.loan> appends the letter "R" and the ".loan" top-level domain to Complainant's registered STATE FARM mark. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., AXA SA v. Ran Jian, D2017-0205 (WIPO Apr. 8, 2017) (finding <axa3k.loan> confusingly similar to AXA); Hearst Communications, Inc. v. Gampong Pungget / Organization Paplemo, FA 1708890 (Forum Feb. 9, 2017) (finding <caranddriverr.com> confusingly similar to CAR AND DRIVER); Tuffy Associates Corp. & Car-X Associates Corp. v. carxr, FA 1434792 (Forum Apr. 26, 2012) (finding <carxr.com> confusingly similar to CARX); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Dietzel & Dietzel Inc / Domain Manager, FA 1430563 (Forum Mar. 22, 2012) (finding <statefarmk.com> confusingly similar to STATE FARM). The Panel therefore considers the domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's mark without authorization. It does not appear that Complainant is making any active use of the domain name at the present time. Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered a domain name that was clearly intended to convey the impression of association with Complainant, and has used this domain name to direct traffic to a college search website, presumably for commercial gain. The Panel considers these facts indicative of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv). Respondent's use of a privacy registration service is a further indication of bad faith. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Tulip Co. / Tulip Trading Co., FA 1681653 (Forum Aug. 2, 2016). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <statefarmr.loan> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: November 10, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page