State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Jason Harris
Claim Number: FA1710001752876
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("Complainant"), represented by Sherri Dunbar of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Jason Harris ("Respondent"), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarmautoloans.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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 9, 2017; the Forum received payment on October 9, 2017.
On October 10, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <statefarmautoloans.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 October 10, 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 e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@statefarmautoloans.com. Also on October 10, 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 November 2, 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.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <statefarmautoloans.com> in July 2016. The domain name initially resolved to a web page for BlueSky Auto Finance, and now resolves to a web page for Standard Auto Financial. 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 to Complainant's mark for business purposes.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <statefarmautoloans.com> 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 <statefarmautoloans.com> appends the generic term "auto loans" and the ".com" top-level domain to Complainant's registered STATE FARM mark, omitting the spaces. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Darren Vallone LLC c/o Darren Vallone, FA 1365294 (Forum Feb. 8, 2011) (finding <autoloanstatefarm.com> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Nubian London, FA 1055112 (Forum Sept. 18, 2007) (finding <statefarmautorates.com> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Brian Orloske, FA 105735 (Forum Apr. 5, 2002) (finding <statefarmloan.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, and its only apparent uses have been for websites comprised of pay-per-click links relating to Complainant's industry. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. John Reddoch / Reddoch Media Group, FA 1701162 (Forum Dec. 1, 2016); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Darren Vallone LLC c/o Darren Vallone, supra. 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 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)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), 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."
As noted above, Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's well-known mark without authorization, and the only apparent use of the domain name has been to display pay-per-click links relating to Complainant's industry. Under the circumstances the Panel infers that Respondent registered the domain name with Complainant's mark and this type of use in mind. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. John Reddoch / Reddoch Media Group, supra; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Darren Vallone LLC c/o Darren Vallone, supra. 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 <statefarmautoloans.com> 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