State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. W S / WIS INC
Claim Number: FA2112001975976
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is W S / WIS INC (“Respondent”), Cayman Islands.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <stateframinsurance.com> (the “disputed domain name”), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Lynda M. Braun as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 6, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 6, 2021.
On December 7, 2021, the Registrar confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <stateframinsurance.com> disputed 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 8, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 28, 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@stateframinsurance.com. Also on December 8, 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 January 3, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Lynda M. Braun 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a nationally known company that has been doing business since 1930. Complainant engages in business in both the insurance and the financial services industry and has established a nationally-recognized presence on televised and other media.
Complainant first began using the STATE FARM trademark in 1930 and has continuously used the trademark in commerce since that time. Complainant owns the STATE FARM trademark in the United States, registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO) (e.g., Reg. No. 5,271,354, registered on August 22, 2017 in international class 36). In addition, Complainant owns many other trademarks incorporating the terms “State Farm”. The aforementioned trademarks will hereinafter collectively be referred to as the “STATE FARM Mark”.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <stateframinsurance.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM Mark as the disputed domain name incorporates a misspelling of the trademark, merely adding the descriptive term “insurance”, followed by the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”). Complainant further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM Mark based on its registrations with the USPTO. Registration with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). In addition, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM Mark, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed 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 disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(3) the disputed 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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the STATE FARM Mark as set forth below.
Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM Mark based on its registration with the USPTO. Registration with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a trademark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i). 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)). Here, Complainant provides copies of its STATE FARM trademark registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,271,354, registered on August 22, 2017 in international class 36). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM Mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Here, the disputed domain name consists of a misspelling[i] of the STATE FARM Mark, switching the letters “a” and “r” in “farm”, followed by the descriptive term “insurance”, and then followed by the gTLD “.com“. Registration of a domain name that switches the order of two letters in a trademark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). In addition, adding a descriptive term and a gTLD to a complainant’s mark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Staples, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Shield Services, FA 1617690 (Forum June 5, 2015) (changing a single letter is a minor enough change to support a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the addition of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). Respondent misspells Complainant’s STATE FARM Mark by switching the letters “a” and “r” in the term “farm” to create the term “fram”. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the STATE FARM Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established by Complainant.
The Panel finds that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Under the Policy, Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
As Respondent did not respond to the Complaint, Respondent cannot have carried its burden to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that, given the facts here, Respondent would have been hard-pressed to furnish availing arguments, had it chosen to respond:
In support, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or any name similar to it, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its STATE FARM Mark in the disputed domain name. In addition, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet users who seek Complainant’s website to Respondent’s resolving website. Use of a domain name to divert users for a respondent’s own benefit may be evidence of a domain name not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii).”). Here, the disputed domain name redirects to a landing page with a warning message that the website has been blocked due to a potential phishing threat, another indication that the disputed domain name is not being used for a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established by Complainant.
This Panel finds that, based on the record, the Complainant has demonstrated the existence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as described below.
First, the use of a disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to a respondent’s website or online location by creating a likelihood of confusion or a false association with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant’s website or online location demonstrates registration and use in bad faith. See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006).
Second, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent engaged in typosquatting. See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sept. 7, 2018) (“Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use.”). Here, Respondent engaged in typosquatting by switching the letters “a” and “r” in the term “farm” in the disputed domain name (resulting in “fram”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Third, the fame of the STATE FARM Mark, which was used and registered by Complainant far in advance of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, renders it wholly implausible that Respondent created the disputed domain name independently. Moreover, where a disputed domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known name, product or service, its use by someone with no connection to the name, product or service indicates opportunistic bad faith. The Panel concludes that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STATE FARM Mark, and this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The STATE FARM Mark is widely known. It therefore strains credulity to believe that Respondent had not known of the Complainant or its STATE FARM Mark when registering the disputed domain name. Thus, as here, prior knowledge of a complainant’s trademarks before registering a domain name is sufficient to find bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (finding actual knowledge due to the domain name chosen and the use made of it).
Fourth, Respondent has failed to make an active use of the disputed domain name. Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sang Im / Private Registration, FA1310001522801 (Forum Nov. 19, 2013) (holding that because the respondent’s website had 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)). In this case, the disputed domain name redirects to a landing page with a warning message that the website has been blocked due to a potential phishing threat. Complainant provides a screenshot of Respondent’s landing page containing the warning message. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to respond to Complainant’s multiple cease-and- desist letters demonstrates that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy 4(b)(1). See Seiko Epson Corporation v. Ashish Sen, FA 1702054 (Forum Dec. 12, 2016) (finding that failing to respond to a cease-and-desist demand letter constitutes bad faith).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established by 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 <stateframinsurance.com> disputed domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Lynda M. Braun, Panelist
Dated: January 7, 2022
[i] This misspelling is an example of typosquatting, a situation in which a disputed domain name includes a misspelled term.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page