DECISION

 

Bristol West Holdings, Inc. v. bristol west

Claim Number: FA2606002229682

        

PARTIES

Complainant is Bristol West Holdings, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Felicia J. Boyd of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is bristol west ("Respondent"), New York, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bristolwest.org> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Squarespace Domains II 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.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 26, 2026; Forum received payment on June 26, 2026.

 

On June 30, 2026, Squarespace Domains II LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bristolwest.org> domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains II LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains II 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 July 2, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 22, 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@bristolwest.org. Also on July 2, 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 23, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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 alleges:

 

That it began as a private passenger automobile insurance carrier for Florida residents in 1973 and has since expanded its reach to 43 states across the United States. Complainant is today a member of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, one of the largest property and casualty insurer groups in the United States, which serves more than 10 million households nationally. Complainant promotes its insurance services under the BRISTOL WEST trademark and variations incorporating "BRISTOL WEST" (the "BRISTOL WEST Marks"), owns United States federal registrations for the BRISTOL WEST Marks, and has marketed its products and services through its website at the <bristolwest.com> domain name, which it registered in 1996, since at least as early as 1998.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <bristolwest.org> is confusingly similar to the BRISTOL WEST Marks because it consists of Complainant's BRISTOL WEST trademark, the sole distinctive portion of the domain name, followed only by the generic top-level domain ".org."

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent has no trademark or intellectual property rights in the Disputed Domain Name, has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement, or association with Complainant, and has never requested or received any authorization, permission, or license from Complainant to use the BRISTOL WEST Marks. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, or that the Disputed Domain Name is Respondent's legal name. Respondent has never made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and the Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to an active website.

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The BRISTOL WEST Marks were sufficiently distinctive at the time of registration that Respondent would have been aware of Complainant's rights, yet Respondent chose a domain name containing Complainant's BRISTOL WEST trademark in its entirety. There being no evidence of present use or of demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name, Respondent's passive holding of it amounts to bad faith registration and use.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following:

 

Complainant, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Woodland Hills, California, offers private passenger automobile insurance in the United States. USPTO records in evidence show that Complainant owns four United States service mark registrations, each registered on July 15, 2008, each since renewed and each live and active, covering insurance underwriting, administration, and agency services in International Class 036: BRISTOL WEST, Reg. No. 3,466,477; BRISTOL WEST INSURANCE GROUP, Reg. No. 3,466,478; B BRISTOL WEST INSURANCE GROUP and design, Reg. No. 3,466,479; and a stylized "B" design, Reg. No. 3,466,480 (collectively, the "BRISTOL WEST Marks"). The USPTO records state a first use of the BRISTOL WEST mark in commerce of January 1, 1998. On the uncontested record, Complainant has carried on its insurance business under the Bristol West name since 1973 and is today a member of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies.

 

The WHOIS record in evidence for Complainant's own domain name <bristolwest.com> shows that Complainant registered that domain name in 1996, and screenshots in the record show Complainant's operational website at that address marketing insurance services under the BRISTOL WEST Marks, together with Complainant's mobile applications offered through the Google Play and App Store platforms.

 

The WHOIS record in evidence shows that the Disputed Domain Name was registered on June 6, 2026. The Registrar's verification confirms that the registrant of record supplied "bristol west", a string identical to Complainant's mark, as both its registrant name and its organization name, with a postal address in Groveland, New York, and a contact e-mail address at an unrelated personal Gmail account. The Registrar's verification further confirms that the language of the registration agreement is English.

 

A screen capture in the record, taken on or around June 26, 2026, shows that the Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to an active website but instead returns a failure-to-load message. Nothing in the record evidences any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name since its registration.

 

On the uncontested record, Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the BRISTOL WEST Marks, and Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant.

 

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 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

Complainant's registration of the BRISTOL WEST mark with the USPTO establishes its rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.2.1; see also Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Forum Feb. 18, 2004) ("Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.").

 

The Disputed Domain Name reproduces the BRISTOL WEST mark in its entirety, omitting only the space between the two words, a character that cannot form part of a domain name, and appending the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".org." The gTLD is disregarded under the first element as a standard technical requirement of registration. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.11.1. Nothing distinguishes the Disputed Domain Name from the mark.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's BRISTOL WEST mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, at which point the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 2.1.

 

The registrant of record gave its name and organization as "bristol west." A WHOIS listing that facially matches a disputed domain name does not, without independent evidence that the respondent actually carries on business under that name, establish that the respondent is commonly known by the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Beacon Capital Partners, LLC v. C/O Private Ranger Limited / Registrant of beaconcapitals.com, FA 2075845 (Forum Feb. 1, 2024) (a WHOIS string incorporating the domain name is not, without independent evidence of business use, sufficient to make the respondent commonly known by the domain name). Here, nothing in the record suggests that Respondent conducts any business, or is known to anyone, as "Bristol West"; the registration's contact particulars consist of an unrelated personal e-mail address; and Complainant states that it has never authorized Respondent to use the BRISTOL WEST Marks. On this record, the more probable inference is that Respondent simply adopted Complainant's mark as its registration identity. Respondent, by defaulting, has offered nothing to the contrary.

 

Nor does the record disclose any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The screen capture in the record shows that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to no active website. See Michelin North America, Inc. v. Ed Brewmaker, FA 1475767 (Forum Jan. 30, 2013) ("Passive holding of a confusingly similar domain name is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.").

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on June 6, 2026, nearly eighteen years after Complainant's BRISTOL WEST registrations issued and decades after Complainant began using the name in its insurance business. The Disputed Domain Name is identical to the mark, and Respondent went further: it supplied Complainant's own mark as its registrant name and organization in the registration data. A registrant unaware of Complainant would have no reason to identify itself by Complainant's name. The Panel finds, on this record, that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the BRISTOL WEST Marks and with Complainant in mind, which supports a finding of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

As to use, the Disputed Domain Name has resolved to no active website since its registration. From the earliest decisions under the Policy, panels have recognized that passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith use; the question is whether, in the totality of the circumstances, any good faith use of the domain name is plausible. See Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) ("it is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith"); see also Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith). The circumstances here support that inference: the mark is distinctive of Complainant and has been registered and in longstanding use in the insurance industry; the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the mark, leaving no plausible use by Respondent that would not misrepresent an association with Complainant; Respondent's registration data, as found above, discloses no true identity; and Respondent has defaulted rather than offer any explanation.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <bristolwest.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: July 23, 2026