DECISION

 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. PolitiKill Media / PolitiKill

Claim Number: FA2311002071871

 

PARTIES

Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("Complainant"), represented by Sherri Dunbar of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is PolitiKill Media / PolitiKill ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <statefarmpolicy.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 20, 2023. Forum received payment on November 20, 2023.

 

On November 20, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <statefarmpolicy.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 November 21, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 11, 2023 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@statefarmpolicy.com. Also on November 21, 2023, 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.

 

On December 12, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, provides a variety of insurance-related services under the famous STATE FARM mark, in which it has rights through numerous trademark registrations, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). Respondent's <statefarmpolicy.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's STATE FARM mark.

 

Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the <statefarmpolicy.com> domain name. Respondent is not associated with, affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant. Complainant did not authorize Respondent to register the domain name or to use the STATE FARM trademark for Respondent's business purposes.

 

Respondent is not commonly known under the <statefarmpolicy.com> domain name. It is believed that Respondent has never been known by or performed business under the domain name. Respondent does not possess independent intellectual property rights in the name. In addition, Complainant does not have a contractual arrangement with Respondent that would allow Respondent to offer services under the STATE FARM name.

 

Complainant believes that Respondent registered the name to create the impression of association with Complainant, its agents, products, sponsorships, and services; to trade off the goodwill associated with the STATE FARM name; and/or to create initial interest confusion for individuals looking for information about Complainant.

 

Respondent registered the <statefarmpolicy.com> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the STATE FARM mark and uses it in bad faith by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.

 

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 the domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(i)                      the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii)                      Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii)                      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 as 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

Complainant has shown that it has rights in the STATE FARM mark through numerous registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,271,354, registered on August 22, 2017). The Panel finds Respondent's <statefarmpolicy.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, only differing by the addition of the related descriptive term "policy", which does nothing to distinguish the domain name from the mark, and the inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"), which may be ignored. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.

 

(i)         before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)         Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)         Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

The <statefarmpolicy.com> domain name was registered on June 14, 2023, many years after Complainant has shown that its STATE FARM mark had become famous. The domain name initially resolved to a website with information about Amelia Fulton Life. Following a cease-and-desist letter from Complainant, it resolved to a YouTube video website. Neither are related to Complainant.

 

These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarmpolicy.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:

(iv)        by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant's famous STATE FARM mark when Respondent registered the <statefarmpolicy.com> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website or location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source of Respondent's website or location and of the services promoted on the website or location. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

DECISION

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 <statefarmpolicy.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: December 16, 2023