Country Mutual Insurance Company and Country Life Insurance Company v. Kapone Jarrett
Claim Number: FA2003001888122
Complainant is Country Mutual Insurance Company and Country Life Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Liz Brodzinski of Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., Illinois, USA. Respondent is Kapone Jarrett (“Respondent”), Missouri, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <country-financial.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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 13, 2020; the Forum received payment on March 12, 2020.
On March 13, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <country-financial.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 March 17, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 6, 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@country-financial.com. Also on March 17, 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 April 13, 2020, 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.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants
In the instant proceedings, there are two Complainants. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that “[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:
It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.
In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark. But see AmeriSource Corp. v. Park, FA 99134 (Forum Nov. 5, 2001) (“This Panel finds it difficult to hold that a domain name that may belong to AmerisourceBergen Corporation (i.e., the subject Domain Names) should belong to AmeriSource Corporation because they are affiliated companies.”).
In the instant case, the two Complainants, Country Mutual Insurance Company and Country Life Insurance, are registered co-owners of the trademark at issue, and they are in privity with one another. The Panel accepts that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, therefore it will treat them all as a single entity in this proceeding. Throughout this decision, the Complainants will be collectively referred to as “Complainant.”
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is a group of financial services companies that has been providing insurance and related services since 1925, when Complainant was started by a group of Illinois Agricultural Association members that developed an organization to provide fire and lightning insurance to farmers. Complainant’s offerings have since grown to include a bevy of insurance, estate planning, investment management, and annuities services to nearly one million households and businesses in 19 states. Complainant performs its high quality financial services with the help of its more than 3,000 employees and 2,000 financial representatives. Complainant has rights in the COUNTRY FINANCIAL mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 2011.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its COUNTRY FINANCIAL mark as it contains the mark in its entirety and merely adds a hyphen and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant’s COUNTRY FINANCIAL mark. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the disputed domain name redirects to Complainant’s legitimate website and Respondent appears to have made preparations to use the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant in emails.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme for its own financial gain. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainants rights in the COUNTRY FINANCIAL mark at the time of registration.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark COUNTRY FINANCIAL and uses it to market financial services.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at least 2011.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2020.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name redirected to Complainant’s legitimate website and appears to be intended to be used for fraudulent email.
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”).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s COUNTRY FINANCIAL mark in its entirety and merely adds a hyphen and the “.com” gTLD. The addition of a hyphen and a gTLD to a complainant’s wholly incorporated mark may not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Apr. 12, 2007) (finding that the addition of a hyphen between terms of a registered mark did not differentiate the <p-zero.org> domain name from the P ZERO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Longo Brothers Fruit Markets Inc. v. John Obeye / DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE, CHECK AFTERNIC.COM, FA 1734634 (Forum July 17, 2017) (“[O]f course it is well established in prior UDRP cases that the addition of a ‘.com’ suffix is irrelevant when determining if a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark.”). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information can be used to determine if a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name shows that the registrant’s name is “KAPONE JARRETT”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The disputed domain name redirected to Complainant’s legitimate web site and appears to be intended to be used for fraudulent email. This is not 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). 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).”); see also Express Scripts Strategic Development, Inc. v. Oumaimaa Boutriouya, FA1908001858238 (Forum Sept. 24, 2019) (“Use of an email address associated with the disputed domain name to pass oneself off as a complainant in furtherance of phishing is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests in the name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).”). Thus the Panel finds Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, the disputed domain name redirected to Complainant’s legitimate website. This constitutes bad faith use under the Policy. See Bittrex, Inc. v. M D, FA2001001878566 (Forum Feb. 14, 2020) (“Redirecting traffic to a complainant’s website may constitute bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also D Verizon Trademark Servs. LLC v. Boyiko, FA 1382148 (Forum May 12, 2011) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name, even where it resolves to Complainant’s own site, is still registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith in the sense of the Policy.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <country-financial.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: April 13, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page