DECISION

 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Zakiah Guess

Claim Number: FA2112001975361

 

PARTIES

Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA.  Respondent is Zakiah Guess (“Respondent”), Georgia, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <statefarm-regionwest.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 1, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 1, 2021.

 

On December 2, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <statefarm-regionwest.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 December 2, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 22, 2021 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@statefarm-regionwest.com.  Also on December 2, 2021, 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 December 28, 2021, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that is a nationally known company that has been doing business under the name “State Farm” since 1930. In 1999, Complainant opened a Federally Chartered Bank known as State Farm Bank. Complainant engages in business in both the insurance and the financial services industry. Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 2012.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to its STATE FARM mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds a hyphen, the geographical term “regionwest,” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”)

 

According to Complainant, Respondent has no legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the STATE FARM mark. The disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, it resolves to a parked page that displays click-through advertising links to products and services that compete with those of Complainant.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to disrupt Complainant’s business and divert customers for commercial gain by displaying competing advertising links on the resolving website. 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.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the mark STATE FARM dating back to at least 2012 and uses it to provide insurance and financial services.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2021.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

Respondent is using the disputed domain names to resolve to a parked web page that displays advertising links to products and services that compete with those of Complainant.

 

DISCUSSION

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”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s STATE FARM mark in its entirety and merely adds a hyphen, the geographic term “regionwest”, and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a geographic term spaced by a hyphen, along with the “.com” gTLD is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Franklin Covey Co. v. franklincoveykorea, FA 1774660 (Forum Apr. 11, 2018) (finding that the <franklincoveykorea.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the FRANKLIN COVEY mark, as “[t]he addition of a geographic term and a gTLD do not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the STATE FARM mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Zakiah Guess”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The evidence provided by Complainant shows that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to display a parked webpage containing links to third-party sites, some of which offer products and services that compete with those of Complainant. Use of a domain name to redirect users to competing third-party sites is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA1507001629217 (Forum August 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a web page that featured links to services that competed with those of the complainant). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business and attract users for commercial gain through the use of third-party links. Panels have found such a use of a domain name to constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Capital One Financial Corp. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA1504001615034 (Forum June 4, 2015) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <capitaloneonebank.com> domain name to display links to the complainant’s competitors, such as Bank of America, Visa, Chase and American Express constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Above.com Domain Privacy, FA1501001598657 (Forum February 20, 2015) (“This Panel agrees that Respondent’s use as shown in Exhibits C-D illustrates that Respondent here seeks commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion, as competing hyperlinks have been found to establish evidence of intent to seek commercial gain through referral fees, and thus demonstrates bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Thus, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <statefarm-regionwest.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated:  December 28, 2021

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page