State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Chelsea Walker
Claim Number: FA2210002017691
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Chelsea Walker (“Respondent”), Louisiana, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bernardstatefarm.com>, registered with Google LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 26, 2022; Forum received payment on October 26, 2022.
On October 27, 2022, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bernardstatefarm.com> 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 October 27, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 16, 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@bernardstatefarm.com. Also on October 27, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did however send an email to the Forum, see below.
On November 17, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 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 asserts rights in the STATE FARM mark based upon its registration in the United States in 2012.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its STATE FARM mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the name “Bernard” and the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) “.com”.
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s STATE FARM mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name is not being used.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain to create confusion and host an inactive website. Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with constructive or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STATE FARM mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In its email to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: “I thought that this domain had already been canceled. I will log in now and make sure to send whatever you need showing that it has been done. Am I being served by a Sheriff too? I will do whatever is needed. It hasn’t been used since the original email that I received.”
For the reasons given 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."
The Panel interprets Respondent’s email to the Forum as indicating consent to transfer the disputed domain name. Thus, 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.”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
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 <bernardstatefarm.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: November 17, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page