State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot
Claim Number: FA2001001878047
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <financialsstatefarm.com>, registered with Dynadot, 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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 8, 2020; the Forum received payment on January 8, 2020.
On January 8, 2020, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <financialsstatefarm.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, 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 January 9, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 29, 2020 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@financialsstatefarm.com. Also on January 9, 2020, 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 January 31, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is a famous business that engages in both the insurance and financial services industry. Complainant claims rights in the STATE FARM mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,211,626, registered on Sep. 18, 2012). Respondent’s <financialsstatefarm.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, less the space, merely adding the descriptive term “financials,” and the “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <financialsstatefarm.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s STATE FARM mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the <financialsstatefarm.com> domain name to divert Internet users away from Complainant. In addition, Respondent fails to make an active use of the disputed domain name.
Respondent has registered and used the <financialsstatefarm.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or location of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STATE FARM mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is a famous business that engages in both the insurance and financial services industry. Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM mark based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,211,626, registered on Sep. 18, 2012). Respondent’s <financialsstatefarm.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark.
Respondent registered the <financialsstatefarm.com> domain name on September 13, 2019.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <financialsstatefarm.com> domain name. Respondent fails to make an active use of the disputed domain name.
Respondent has registered and used the <financialsstatefarm.com> 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(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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM mark based upon its registration with the USPTO. See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <financialsstatefarm.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark as Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety, less the space, merely adding the descriptive term “financials,” and the “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <financialsstatefarm.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use the STATE FARM mark. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark.). The WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot,” and there is no other evidence to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the STATE FARM mark. The Panel therefore finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent fails to use the <financialsstatefarm.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Rather, Respondent fails to make an active use of the <financialsstatefarm.com> domain name. See Kohler Co. v xi long chen, FA 1737910 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (”Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. Respondent’s <kohler-corporation.com> resolves to an inactive webpage displaying the message “website coming soon!”).
Respondent has registered and uses the <financialsstatefarm.com> domain name in bad faith under to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent has failed to make an active use of the domain name. See Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sang Im / Private Registration, FA1310001522801 (Forum M Nov. 19, 2013) (holding that because the respondent’s website contained no content related to the domain name and instead generated the error message “Error 400- Bad Request,” the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <financialsstatefarm.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: February 13, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page