State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. lin yanxiao
Claim Number: FA2108001958888
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("Complainant"), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is lin yanxiao ("Respondent"), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <statefarmautoloan.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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 August 10, 2021; the Forum received payment on August 10, 2021.
On August 11, 2021, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by email to the Forum that the <statefarmautoloan.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 August 13, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 2, 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@statefarmautoloan.com. Also on August 13, 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 September 8, 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 <statefarmautoloan.com> in March 2021. The domain name does not resolve to a website. Complainant sent a series of cease and desist letters to Respondent, asking that the domain name be transferred to Complainant. Respondent replied to the second such letter in April, stating that the domain name had been suspended, but did not respond to Complainant's subsequent correspondence. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not associated with, affiliated with, or sponsored by Complainant nor authorized to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <statefarmautoloan.com> 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 <statefarmautoloan.com> incorporates Complainant's registered STATE FARM trademark, with the space omitted, and adds the generic terms "auto" and "loan," and the ".com" top-level domain. 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. Jason Harris, FA 1752876 (Forum Nov. 10, 2017) (finding <statefarmautoloans.com> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); 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). 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 there is no indication that Respondent has used the domain name or made demonstrable preparations to do so. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Ajay Jangid, FA 1954448 (Forum Aug. 9, 2021) (finding lack of rights or legitimate 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)(ii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was registered "in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [Respondent] ha[s] engaged in a pattern of such conduct." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), 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."
Respondent registered a domain name combining Complainant's well-known mark with a term associated with Complainant's services, and does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name. The Panel infers from the circumstances that Respondent registered and is maintaining the domain name with the intent to create and exploit confusion with Complainant and its mark for Respondent's commercial gain. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Ajay Jangid, supra (making such an inference in similar circumstances). In addition, the Panel notes that Respondent has been found to have registered domain names in bad faith in numerous prior proceedings under the Policy, and finds that the present case is part of a continuing pattern of bad faith registrations under paragraph 4(b)(ii). See, e.g., Charter Communications Holding Co., LLC v. lin yanxiao, FA 1952246 (Forum July 28, 2021) (finding a pattern of bad faith registrations by Respondent); Charter Communications Holding Co., LLC v. lin yanxiao, FA 1952247 (Forum July 21, 2021) (same); Skechers U.S.A., Inc. & Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. lin yanxiao, FA 1674758 (Forum June 10, 2016) (same). 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 <statefarmautoloan.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: September 13, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page