DECISION

 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Malcolm Davis

Claim Number: FA2606002225541

 

PARTIES

Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("Complainant"), represented by Theresa Harms of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Malcolm Davis ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <statefarmclaims.support>, registered with Spaceship, 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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 5, 2026; Forum received payment on June 5, 2026.

 

On June 23, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <statefarmclaims.support> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 June 29, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 20, 2026 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@statefarmclaims.support. Also on June 29, 2026, 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 July 21, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant State Farm is a nationally known company that has been doing business under the name "State Farm" since 1930 and engages in business in both the insurance and the financial services industry.

 

The STATE FARM mark is registered with the USPTO and other registries worldwide as are other marks containing STATE FARM. STATE FARM has become a famous mark as acknowledged by prior panels.

 

Respondent's Domain Name is Identical and/or Confusingly Similar. The STATE FARM mark is distinctive and has acquired secondary meaning. Reading of the syntax of Respondent's domain name can only bring to mind Complainant's mark. Generally, the addition of a related term or a generic term to a domain name is not sufficient to distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent Has No Legitimate Interest in the 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 the Respondent's business purposes. Respondent is not commonly known under the domain name <statefarmclaims.support>. It is believed that the Respondent has never been known by or performed business under the domain name at issue. Respondent does not possess independent intellectual property rights in the domain name. In addition, Complainant does not have a contractual arrangement with Respondent that would allow them to offer services under the STATE FARM name. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name to create the impression of association with STATE FARM, its agents, products, sponsorships, and services; to trade off the good will associated with the State Farm name; and/or to create initial interest confusion for individuals looking for information about Complainant.

 

Respondent Has Acted in Bad Faith. The at-issue domain name is intended to attract individuals seeking information about Complainant and to create customer confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the <statefarmclaims.support> domain name . Respondent has never been known by the name "State Farm." Respondent has never traded under the name "State Farm." Respondent has not acquired a trademark or other intellectual property rights in the domain name in question. Moreover, Respondent has not registered the name in question with the Secretary of State in the state in which it does business or filed incorporation papers with respect to the same. This obvious lack of right to use the name in question shows bad faith registration and use. Despite having registered the domain name <statefarmclaims.support> Respondent is not authorized to sell products, engage in sponsorships or services for or on behalf of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, its affiliates or subsidiaries and is not an independent contractor agent of Complainant. Registering a domain name for products and services that it does not have authority to offer shows that the Respondent has acted in bad faith. While the Respondent registered the domain name <statefarmclaims.support>, giving the impression that interested individuals will receive information regarding Complainant, the fact is the domain name resolves to an error page which states "Hmmm...can't reach this page." By using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract internet users to Respondent's website or other on-line locations, 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. Respondent's use of a trademark in direct conflict with Complainant's interest reflects that Respondent has acted in bad faith. Respondent is not 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 this Complaint, there was no legitimate content associated with the name and no demonstrable indication that legitimate content would be forthcoming. Even if the Respondent did put information on its website, its content along with the proposed domain name, would be in direct conflict with information Complainant already provides and would cause confusion to potential customers. Failure to resolve the domain name to legitimate content indicates that the Respondent has no legitimate reason for having registered the name and demonstrates that it has registered and is using the name in bad faith. Respondent's use of the <statefarmclaims.support> domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use in that the at-issue domain name resolves to an inactive website. Respondent has been sent multiple communications through Spaceship, Inc. WHOIS contact form informing them the domain name infringes on Complainant's trademark. Failure to respond with legitimate information for use or intention to use the name and then failure to respond to Complainant demonstrates Respondent has registered and is using the name in bad faith. Respondent registered its domain name on October 9, 2025. Complainant registered its domain name "statefarm.com" on May 24, 1995. Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant's long-term use of the trademark STATE FARM, STATE FARM INSURANCE and the long-term use of the domain name "statefarm.com." Respondent's registration of the domain name was intended to be in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM trademark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in STATE FARM.

 

Respondent holds the at-issue <statefarmclaims.support> domain name passively.

 

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 3.1 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

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has registered its STATE FARM trademark and other related marks that include STATE FARM with the USPTO, as well as with other trademark agencies worldwide. Any of such registrations demonstrates Complainant's rights in a mark under the Policy. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name consists of Complainant's STATE FARM trademark less its domain name impermissible space, followed by the suggestive term "claims," with all followed by the suggestive ".support" top-level domain name. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's STATE FARM mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's STATE FARM trademark. See 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.").

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the <statefarmclaims.support> domain name. 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)").

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name leads to finding that the domain name's registrant is "Malcolm Davis" and the record before the Panel contains no competent evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <statefarmclaims.support>. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name is not linked to an active website. Instead <statefarmclaims.support> returns a system error message stating "Hmmm...can't reach this page" and thus indicating that the domain name is inactive and being held passively. Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v. Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) ("Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)."). 

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <statefarmclaims.support>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without limitation, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

As mentioned above concerning rights and legitimate interests, Respondent's <statefarmclaims.support> domain name is inactive as it returns only an error message and no substantive content. Respondent's passive holding of the confusingly similar <statefarmclaims.support> domain name reveals Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Zhuang Yan / WANGYONG, FA 1764026 (Forum Feb. 14, 2018) ("Respondent's domain names do not have resolving websites. Using a domain name to resolve to an inactive website (or no website at all) indicates bad faith registration and use.").

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the STATE FARM trademark when it registered <statefarmclaims.support> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's famous STATE FARM mark and from Respondent's inclusion of the suggestive terms "claims" and "support" in forming the at-issue domain name. Respondent's registration and use of <statefarmclaims.support> with knowledge of Complainant's rights in STATE FARM further shows Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024) ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: July 22, 2026