DECISION

 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Eidan Gamaty

Claim Number: FA2312002075344

 

PARTIES

Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("Complainant"), represented by Sherri Dunbar, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Eidan Gamaty ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <aistatefarm.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.       

      

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 14, 2023; Forum received payment on December 14, 2023.

 

On December 15, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <aistatefarm.com> 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 18, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 8, 2024, 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@aistatefarm.com. Also on December 18, 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 January 9, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson 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

State Farm is a nationally known company that has been doing business under the name "State Farm" since 1930. State Farm engages in business in both the insurance and the financial services industry. State Farm developed its Internet web presence in 1995 using the domain name <statefarm.com>.  At its web site, State Farm offers detailed information relating to a variety of topics that include its insurance and financial service products, consumer information, and information about its independent contractor agents.

 

For over 70 years State Farm has expended substantial time, effort, and funds to develop the good will associated with its "State Farm" mark. State Farm does not allow unauthorized parties to use its marks as part of their Internet domain names.

 

Complainant's mark, "State Farm," is a clearly famous trademark. Prior panels have acknowledged Complainant's rights in the STATE FARM mark(s) and found the STATE FARM mark famous. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Tulip Trading Company, FA 1701155 (Forum Dec. 12, 2016) ("Numerous panels have agreed the STATE FARM mark is famous."); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. wwWHYyy.com, FA 1063456 (Forum Sept. 25, 2007) (finding that [t]here can be no doubt that STATE FARM is a very famous mark, and Complainant has clearly established rights in the [mark] pursuant to Policy P4(a)(i) based upon its numerous federal trademarks and use in commerce since 1930).

 

The Respondent's domain name at issue is identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. Further, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not associated with, affiliated with, or sponsored by State Farm. State Farm did not authorize the Respondent to register the domain name or to use the State Farm trademark for the Respondent's business purposes.

 

Respondent has no legitimate claim in the domain name at issue as the facts demonstrate that Respondent has registered and is using the name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("Complainant"), of Bloomington, IL, USA. Complainant is the owner of the domestic registration for its mark STATE FARM, which it has continually used since at least as early as 1930 in connection with its provision of insurance and financial services products. Complainant also established a web presence using its registered mark by additionally registering and continuously using the domain name <statefarm.com> as early as 1995. 

 

Respondent is Eidan Gamaty ("Respondent"), of West Hollywood CA, USA. Respondent's registrar's address is listed Scottsdale, AZ, USA. Respondent registered the domain name <aistatefarm.com> on or about March 23, 2023.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant asserts rights in the mark STATE FARM based upon registration with the USPTO (see USPTO Reg. No. 4211626) registered September 18, 2012). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes rights in the mark. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). The Panel here finds that Complainant has established rights in the Marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant claims that Respondent's <aistatefarm.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's STATE FARM mark. Typographical errors, and attaching unrelated letters or words, as well as the addition of a gTLD is insufficient to distinguish a domain name. See Google Inc. v. Jon G., FA 106084 (Forum Apr. 26, 2002) (finding <googel.com> to be confusingly similar to the complainant's GOOGLE mark and noting that "[t]he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity, as the result reflects a very probable typographical error"). The letters "ai" are an acronym for artificial intelligence. The use of the Complainant's mark in full along with the letters "ai"  support a finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.

 

The Panel here finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Complainant has proven this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel notes that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also 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"). Complainant has made out a prima facie case here.

 

Complainant argues Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <aistatefarm.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has never licensed rights to or authorized Respondent to use its STATE FARM mark. Where WHOIS information suggests a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name, if there is no further evidence to the contrary, Panels have found a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See SPTC, Inc. v. Bonanzas.com, Inc., FA 409895 (Forum Mar. 14, 2005) (no rights or legitimate interest in domain name SOTHEBYSAUCTIONS.COM because respondent was not known by SOTHEBY'S name). Further, when there is no evidence to indicate a complainant has authorized the use of a mark, the lack thereof further supports a conclusion that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and thus lacks any rights or legitimate interest. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"); see also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).

 

The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name indicates the registrant as Eidan Gamaty. Respondent provided no evidence to indicate that Respondent is in fact known by the disputed domain name. There is also no evidence to suggest Respondent was ever authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted to use Complainant's mark.

 

The Panel here finds Respondent is not commonly known by, and lacks rights or legitimate interests in, the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

The Complainant has proven this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and uses the <aistatefarm.com> domain name in bad faith. Complainant additionally argues Respondent intended to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of Respondent's website, which is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Nestlé Waters North America, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 1792308 (Forum July 22, 2018) (Finding Respondent uses the domain names to point to a site which offers links relating to Complainant's business. "Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant.").

 

Complainant notes Respondent is not currently using, nor are there any demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. As of the date of the Complaint, there was no legitimate content associated with the name and no indication that legitimate content would be forthcoming. Failure to resolve the domain name to legitimate content indicates that the Respondent has no legitimate reason for having registered the name and that it registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.

 

Complainant generally alleges that Respondent's current use of the <aistatefarm.com> domain name constitutes an inactive holding, which shows bad faith. Prior panels have found a failure to make an active use of a domain name shows bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent's [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy). The Panel here finds that Respondent uses the <aistatefarm.com> domain in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel here finds that Complainant has shown bad faith registration and use by Respondent per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Complainant has proven this element.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant's requested relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <aistatefarm.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist

Dated: January 18, 2024