State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Katie Martin

Claim Number: FA2205001997051



Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA.  Respondent is Katie Martin (“Respondent”), Ohio, USA.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with Google 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 May 19, 2022; the Forum received payment on May 19, 2022.


On May 20, 2022, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <> domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 May 23, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 13, 2022 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  Also on May 23, 2022, 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. Respondent did however send an email to the Forum, see below.


On June 22, 2022, 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.



Respondent contends that it has been the victim of identity theft, see below. As the Forum did not receive any further response from the named Respondent, it proceeded with the Panel appointment.  The Panel has taken the following rules and precedent into account in making a determination on not redacting Respondent’s identity.


According to Policy ¶ 4(j), “[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision.” In Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <>, FA 362108 (Forum Dec. 30, 2004) and Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellsfargossl>, FA 453727 (Forum May 19, 2005), the panels omitted the respondents’ personal information from the decisions, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(j), in an attempt to protect the respondents who claimed to be victims of identity theft from becoming aligned with acts the actual registrants appeared to have sought to impute to the respondents.).


However, according to Forum Supplemental Rule 15(b), “All requests pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(j) and Rule 16(b) to have a portion of the decision redacted, must be made in the Complaint, the Response, or an Additional Submission that is submitted before the Panel’s decision is published.” (emphasis added).  Rule 1 defines “respondent” as “the holder of a domain-name registration against which a complaint is initiated;” and Forum Supplemental Rule 1(d) further defines “the holder of a domain-name registration” as “the single person or entity listed in the WHOIS registration information at the time of commencement.” The Panel notes precedent which holds the registrar-confirmed registrant of a disputed domain (per the WHOIS at commencement of the proceeding) the proper respondent, notwithstanding the possibility that said respondent’s identity was stolen.  See, e.g., Banco Bradesco S/A v. Gisele Moura Leite, D2014-0414 (WIPO Apr. 30, 2014). 


In the instant case, there has been no request in the Complaint to redact any portion of the decision, nor has there been a Response or an Additional Submission. Consequently, the Panel finds that it is not warranted to redact Respondent’s name and location from the Panel’s decision,



A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is a nationally known company that has been doing business under the name “State Farm” since 1930. It engages in business in both the insurance and the financial services industry. Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM mark through its registration in the United States in 2012.


Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its STATE FARM mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds a personal name and the generic/descriptive terms “insurance agent” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant’s independent contractor agent whose name appears in the disputed domain name did not register the domain name.


According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its STATE FARM mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or service, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead inactively holds the disputed domain name.


Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent inactively holds the disputed domain name. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STATE FARM mark. Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s cease-and-desist letters.


B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In its email to the Forum, Respondent states: “I don’t have access to this domain. I didn’t set this up. Please transfer this domain name to State Farm so this can be resolved.”



For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.



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.


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."


In the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.


See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).


Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.


Rights or Legitimate Interests

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.


Registration and Use in Bad Faith

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.



Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.



Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated:  June 22, 2022



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page