State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Jiri Capcuch
Claim Number: FA2208002007715
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Jiri Capcuch (“Respondent”), Czech Republic.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <statesfarmsinsurance.com>, registered with Dynadot, 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.
Petter Rindforth as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 9, 2022; the Forum received payment on August 9, 2022.
On August 10, 2022, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <statesfarmsinsurance.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, 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 August 10, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 30, 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 postmaster@statesfarmsinsurance.com. Also on August 10, 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.
On August 31, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Petter Rindforth 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 offers insurance services. Complainant asserts rights in the STATE FARM trademark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., reg. no. 5,271,354, registered August 22, 2017). Respondent’s <statesfarmsinsurance.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark because it contains the STATE FARM trademark in its entirety, merely adding the letter “S,” the term “INSURANCE,” and the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) “.com” to form the disputed domain name.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <statesfarmsinsurance.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s STATE FARM trademark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to create initial interest confusion for internet users seeking information about Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the <statesfarmsinsurance.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Complainant’s would-be website visitors for commercial gain. Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations for the use of the disputed domain name. Respondent failed to respond to cease-and-desist letters. Respondent has engaged in typosquatting.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the following U.S. trademark registrations:
No. 4,211,626 StateFarm (logo), registered September 18, 2012 for services in class 36;
No. 4,227,731 StateFarm (logo), registered October 16, 2012 for services in class 36;
No. 5,271,354 STATE FARM (word), registered August 22, 2017 for services in class 36;
No. 2,444,342 STATEFARM.COM (word), registered April 17, 2001 for services in class 36;
No. 2,444,341 STATEFARM.COM (word), registered April 17, 2001 for services in class 38;
No. 2,450,890 STATEFARM.COM (word), registered May 15, 2001 for services in class 42;
No. 2,617,951 STATE FARM CATASTROPHE SERVICES (word), registered September 10, 2002 for services in class 36;
No. 2,617,950 STATE FARM CATASTROPHE TEAM (word), registered September 10, 2002 for services in class 36;
No. 4,492,572 STATE FARM CENTER (word), registered March 4, 2014 for services in class 43;
No. 4,492,573 StateFarm CENTER (fig), registered March 4, 2014 for services in class 43;
No. 4,335,809 State Farm Companies Foundation (logo), registered May 14, 2013 for services in class 36;
No. 4,273,289 State Farm Companies Foundation (logo), registered January 8, 2013 for services in class 36;
No. 2,544,840 STATE FARM DOLLARS (word), registered March 5, 2002 for services in class 35;
No. 4,590,399 STATE FARM FEDERAL CREDITUNION (fig), registered August 19, 2014 for services in class 36;
No. 2,591,039 STATE FARM MUTUAL FUNDS (word), registered July 9, 2002 for services in class 36; and
No. 2,381,383 STATE FARM PREMIER SERVICE (word), registered August 29, 2000 for services in class 36.
The Complainant is also the owner of STATE FARM trademark registrations in Canada and the European Union.
The disputed domain name <statesfarmsinsurance.com> was registered on April 19, 2022.
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”).
Complainant asserts rights in the STATE FARM mark based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g., reg. no. 5,271,354, registered August 22, 2017), Registration of a trademark with the USPTO is considered a valid showing of rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”); see also 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)). Since Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the STATE FARM trademark with the USPTO, the Panel find that Complainant has rights in the trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <statesfarmsinsurance.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark because it contains the STATE FARM trademark in its entirety, merely adding the letter “S,” the term “INSURANCE,” and the gTLD “.com” to form the disputed domain name. The addition of generic or descriptive terms and gTLDs to a trademark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word “advisors” and the gTLD “.com” did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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.”).
Further, the addition of a single letter to a trademark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See PathAdvantage Associated v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1625731 (Forum July 23, 2015) (holding that the <pathadvantages.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the PATHADVANTAGE trademark because the domain name “merely adds the letter ‘s’ to Complainant’s mark”).
Therefore, the Panel find that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the STATE FARM trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name).
Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarmatl.com> domain name because Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s STATE FARM trademark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s trademark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Jiri Capcuch.” Therefore, the Panel find that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Additionally, Complainant asserts that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to create initial interest confusion for internet users seeking information about Complainant. Any attempt to divert traffic using a disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Invesco Ltd. v. Premanshu Rana, FA 1733167 (Forum July 10, 2017) (“Use of a domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Panel agrees with the Complainant’s conclusion, and find that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <statesfarmsinsurance.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Complainant’s would-be website visitors for commercial gain. Attempts to divert traffic from a complainant’s legitimate webpage to a disputed domain name evinces bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business); see also Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain). Here, Complainant notes the inclusion of Complainant’s STATE FARM trademark in the disputed domain name as evidence of Respondent’s bad faith. Thus, the Panel find that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), if it agrees.
Complainant notes that Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations for the use of the disputed domain name. A failure to make active use or demonstrable preparations for the use of a disputed domain name suggests bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Phat Fashions, LLC v. Kruger, FA 96193 (Forum Dec. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) even though the respondent has not used the domain name because “it makes no sense whatever to wait until it actually ‘uses’ the name, when inevitably, when there is such use, it will create the confusion described in the Policy”). Here, Complainant has provided screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage, showing its inactive state. The Panel - considering also the fact that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark - therefore find bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant further notes that Respondent failed to respond to cease-and-desist letters. Failure to respond to a cease-and-desist letter evinces bad faith. 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). Here, Complainant has provided copies of the cease-and-desist letters it sent to Respondent, dated June 24, July 8, and July 22, 2022. The Panel agrees, and find that Respondent acted in bad faith.
Complainant contends that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use. See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. IS / ICS INC, FA 16070016833 (Forum Aug. 11, 2016) (“Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant, such as Respondent, deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the string in a domain name. The conniving registrant wishes and hopes that Internet users will inadvertently type the malformed trademark or read the domain name and believe it is legitimately associated with the target trademark. In doing so, wayward Internet users are fraudulently directed to a web presence controlled by the confusingly similar domain name’s registrant.”); see also Homer TLC, Inc. v. Artem Ponomarev, FA1506001623825 (Forum July 20, 2015) (“Finally, under this head of the Policy, it is evident that the <homededpot.com> domain name is an instance of typosquatting, which is the deliberate misspelling of the mark of another in a domain name, done to take advantage of common typing errors made by Internet users in entering into a web browser the name of an enterprise with which they would like to do business online. Typosquatting is independent evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of a domain name.”). The Panel recalls that the disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s trademark, the additional letter “S,” the descriptive term “INSURANCE,” and a gTLD. Therefore, the Panel agrees with Complainant’s conclusion, and find that Respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is action in bad faith.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <statesfarmsinsurance.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Petter Rindforth, Panelist
Dated: September 6, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page