State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. kaparthi Jonnalagadda
Claim Number: FA2101001927593
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("Complainant"), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is kaparthi Jonnalagadda ("Respondent"), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarminsurance.co>, 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 January 8, 2021; the Forum received payment on January 8, 2021.
On January 11, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <statefarminsurance.co> 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 January 12, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 1, 2021 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@statefarminsurance.co. Also on January 12, 2021, 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 February 3, 2021, 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 longstanding trademark registrations for STATE FARM and related marks in the United States and other jurisdictions.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <statefarminsurance.co> in November 2020. The domain name redirects to a page stating that the domain name is for sale and inviting users to submit purchase offers for it. Complainant contacted Respondent, asserting its trademark rights, and received the following response:
I am a domain name investor and I bought state farm insurance in order to sell it to a prospective buyer who sells insurance. Since the name state farm insurance can be associated with any states farm insurance.
Respectfully, I bought this domain for a high price so not looking to let it go for free.
Let me know if you are interested to purchase the domain name.
Respondent subsequently sent another message to Complainant, directing Complainant to an auction page where one could purchase the domain name for $26,999 or submit an offer of at least $17,549.
Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that Complainant does not have a contractual arrangement with Respondent that would allow Respondent to offer services under the STATE FARM mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <statefarminsurance.co> is confusingly similar to its STATE FARM mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in 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 is being 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <statefarminsurance.co> incorporates Complainant's registered STATE FARM trademark, omitting the space and adding the generic term "insurance" (a primary business of Complainant) and the ".co" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Indeed, Inc. v. Manoj Kumar Hota, FA 1927106 (Forum Jan. 28, 2021) (finding <indeedcareer.co> confusingly similar to INDEED); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Dr. Keenan Cofield, FA 1799574 (Forum Sept. 10, 2018) (finding <statefarminsurance.app> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Khadim Hussain, FA 1770038 (Forum Feb. 27, 2018) (finding <statefarminsurance.club> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Colli Wood, FA 1711960 (Forum Feb. 14, 2017) (finding <statefarminsurance.xyz> confusingly similar to STATE FARM). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and its sole apparent use has been to direct Internet users to a website offering the domain name itself for sale. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See, e.g., Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Arockias Inc, FA 1835602 (Forum Apr. 17, 2019) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances).
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 is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name."
Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's well-known mark without authorization and is using it for the sole purpose of soliciting purchase offers for the domain name. The domain name has been listed at a domain name auction site at a price that the Panel infers to be far in excess of Respondent's out-of-pocket costs. Under the circumstances, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent was at all relevant times aware of Complainant and its mark and that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intent of exploiting its correspondence to Complainant's name and mark. See, e.g., Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Arockias Inc, supra (making such inferences in similar circumstances). The Panel concludes that the 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 <statefarminsurance.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: February 4, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page