Westmore · UDRP decision
WIPO · Case No. D2011-0063

Allstatefinancialservices.com

TransferWIPO-indexed · informational, not legal advice

The Panel ordered transfer of <allstatefinancialservices.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the long-standing ALLSTATE and ALLSTATE FINANCIAL marks because it incorporated ALLSTATE and added the descriptive words “financial services.” The domain resolved to an undisputed pay-per-click site with insurance-related links, including links concerning competitors. The Panel found no rights or legitimate interests and inferred from the well-known marks and the absence of contrary evidence that Respondent knew or must have known of Complainant’s marks when registering the domain.

Outcome
Transfer
At a glance
Provider
WIPO
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2011-03-08
Panelist(s)
Elliott, Clive L.
Complainant
Allstate Insurance Company
Respondent
Domains by Proxy, Inc./B.T. Croughs
Counsel
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky · Popeo, PC
Disputed domain(s)
allstatefinancialservices.com
Domain history UDRP Intelligence

The timeline behind allstatefinancialservices.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Reconstructing the record for allstatefinancialservices.com…
Verified public record
Outcome & remedy
Complaint granted. Panel ordered transfer of allstatefinancialservices.com.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
No RDNH raised.
Westmore Insight

The case illustrates a straightforward combination of a well-known mark with descriptive terms closely matching the trademark owner’s services. The descriptive wording increased rather than dispelled the association with Complainant, while the insurance-related pay-per-click use reinforced the absence of a legitimate interest and the inference of bad faith.

The three-part test
Identical or Confusingly SimilarMet
Rights or Legitimate InterestsMet
Registered and Used in Bad FaithMet

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

Case details
Provider
WIPO
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2011-03-08
Panel
Elliott, Clive L.
Full decision
8 min read · hosted by Westmore

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Allstate Insurance Company v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / B.T. Croughs Case No. D2011-0063 1. The Parties Complainant is Allstate Insurance Company of Northbrook, Illinois, United States of America, represented by Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, PC, United States of America. Respondent is Domains by Proxy, Inc. / B.T. Croughs, Nieuweweg of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America and Groningen, the Netherlands, respectively. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <allstatefinancialservices.com> is registered with Go Australia Domains, Inc (the “Domain Name”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 11, 2011. On January 12, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to Go Australia Domains, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On January 13, 2011, Go Australia Domains, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on January 18, 2011, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on January 19, 2011. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 20, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 9, 2011. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 11, 2011. The Center appointed Clive Elliott as the sole panelist in this matter on February 20, 2011. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Complainant claims that it is the largest publicly held personal lines insurer in the United States of America. It was founded in 1931 and Complainant contends that since then it has become a well-established and well-known insurance company providing insurance services all over the United States of America. Complainant states that it has continuously used the ALLSTATE trademark since 1931 to identify products, services, activities and events related to Complainant. The trademark ALLSTATE was first federally registered in 1961 . 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant states that as well as the ALLSTATE registered trademark it also owns numerous trademark registrations including ALLSTATE FINANCIAL and ALLSTATE.COM. Complainant contends that its revenues were approximately USD 32 billion for 2009 and that it has generated billions of dollars in the sales of products and/or services under the ALLSTATE trademark in the United States of America. Complainant submits that it has devoted hundreds of millions of dollars towards advertising and promoting its services in the United States of America under the ALLSTATE trademark and its services have also been the subject of numerous articles in the media, including national and international print, radio and television. Complainant states that as a result of its extensive promotional efforts and the wide acceptance of its services promoted in connection with the ALLSTATE trademark, the ALLSTATE trademark has become one of the most widely recognized brands among consumers. Complainant asserts that as part of its communications and marketing program, it has registered over 1,000 ALLSTATE-based domain names worldwide (including common typographical errors of the ALLSTATE trademark). These domain names include: <allstate.com> registered in 1995, <allstate.org> registered in 1998 and <allstate.net> registered in 1997. Complainant states that it is also the owner of the domain name <myallstatefinancial . com >, registered in April 2008, from which it offers its financial-related services in connection with the ALLSTATE trademark Complainant notes that Respondent registered the Domain Name on April 1, 2010, many years after Complainant adopted the ALLSTATE trademark, Complainant's registration of the ALLSTATE trademark and Complainant’s registration of the <allstate.com> domain name. Complainant submits that the Domain Name wholly incorporates its well-known ALLSTATE trademark and that the Domain Name differs from Complainant's ALLSTATE trademark only by the addition of the descriptive words "financial services" and merely adds the descriptive word "services" to Complainant's ALLSTATE FINANCIAL trademark. These words merely describe the services provided by Complainant in connection with the ALLSTATE trademark. Complainant contends that Respondent is operating the Domain Name as a pay-per-click advertising site and states that that the webpages corresponding to the Domain Name feature a variety of advertising links for insurance-related services and for direct competitors of Complainant. Complainant suggests that Respondent is likely generating click-through fees from the advertising featured on the website and that such exploitation of the reputation of trademarks to obtain click-through commissions from the diversion of Internet users is an indication of Respondent’s registration in bad faith. Complainant advises that on December 1, 2010, it sent Respondent a letter via e-mail, to the address provided on the registration, advising Respondent that it considered it was violating Complainant's rights by using the Domain Name. Respondent did not respond to this notice. Complainant asserts that although Respondent has used a privacy service in registering the Domain Name, it does not appear that Respondent is commonly known by the ALLSTATE trademark or by any of the terms that comprise the Domain Name . Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its ALLSTATE and ALLSTATE FINANCIAL trademarks when used in connection with insurance-related or investment advisory services and its adoption came long after Complainant's adoption of these trademarks. Complainant argues that adoption of the Domain Name was done with complete knowledge of Complainant and its rights, and with an intent to trade off Complainant's goodwill. Complainant submits that Respondent's use of the ALLSTATE and ALLSTATE FINANCIAL trademarks in the Domain Name is likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the source of the information found on the website affiliated with the Domain Name. It submits that this confusion is compounded by the sponsored links appearing on the corresponding webpages, which feature prominent references to insurance-related services offered by unrelated third-party competitors. Therefore Complainant submits that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that Complainant is the long-standing owner of the ALLSTATE and ALLSTATE FINANCIAL trademarks (hereinafter “the Trademarks”); that there is merit in Complainant’s submission that Complainant is the owner of the Trademarks; that Respondent’s use of the Domain Name wholly incorporates its well-known ALLSTATE trademark; and that the Domain Name differs from Complainant's ALLSTATE trademark only by the addition of the descriptive words "financial services". There is also merit in the submission that the mere addition of the descriptive word "services" to Complainant's ALLSTATE FINANCIAL trademark is confusingly similar. It is well established that the addition of a descriptive term to a known trademark or name does not render it different or distinctive from that trademark or name. Respondent has had the opportunity to do so but has declined to explain why it registered the Domain Name. As a result, the Panel has no difficulty in finding that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademarks. It is therefore found that Complainant has rights in the Trademarks, that the Trademarks comprise a dominant and confusing part of the Domain Name, and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests It appears that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way and has not been authorized by Complainant to use and register its trademarks or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the Trademarks. The registration and use of the Trademarks long preceded the registration of the Domain Name. The Domain Name makes an obvious and direct reference to the Trademarks and insurance-related services provided by Complainant. Complainant contends that Respondent is operating the Domain Name as a pay-per-click advertising site and that the Domain Name provides access to advertising links for insurance-related services and for direct competitors of Complainant. This assertion is not disputed. The Panel finds that such activity is not consistent with any rights or legitimate interests on Respondent’s part. It is therefore established that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires that the Respondent has registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith. It is not difficult for this Panel, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to infer that Respondent knew or must have known of Complainant’s Trademarks at the time it registered the Domain Name. The Trademarks are clearly well-known in the field of insurance-related services in the United States of America and Respondent has not suggested that Complainant's goodwill in and relating to its Trademarks should not be taken into account in assessing Respondent's conduct. This enables the Panel to conclude that the Domain Name was both registered and used in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <allstatefinancialservices.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Clive Elliott Sole Panelist Dated: March 8, 2011

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.

Beyond the decision

What Westmore sees around allstatefinancialservices.com

The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.

Connected to Westmore UDRP Intelligence
115,966 decisions · citations · panelists · parties · domain history
Eleanor · UDRP intelligence
Ask Eleanor about this decision
Ask Eleanor about this decision

A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.

Unlocking Eleanor for this case uses 1 of your complimentary Intelligence unlocks· 3 remaining

Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.

Westmore Professional · Unlock the intelligence

The decision is only the beginning.

You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.

Citation Intelligence
How this decision is cited and treated across the corpus.
Panelist Intelligence
The panel's tendencies, outcomes and reasoning patterns.
Domain History
Ownership chronology — creation vs. respondent acquisition.
Opposing-Party Research
Complainant, counsel and portfolio context.
Independent Case Review
Eleanor challenges your filing before the other side does.
Professional Matters
Open, research and manage matters end to end.
$395/month
Unlock Westmore Professional Annual & firm seats available · cancel anytime
Take the next step
Westmore UDRP · find the right service

Westmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.

Confidential buyer-side representation for premium-domain acquisitions, backed by WHOIS, UDRP and domain-sales intelligence.

or
Buyer-side only Escrow-protected NDA on request
Services
Research
UDRP
Westmore
Support

Copyright © 2026 Westmore. All rights reserved.

Essential cookies only. Nothing is sold or shared.