Westmore · UDRP DecisionGeico.vip
The Panel ordered transfer of <geico.vip>. It found the domain confusingly similar to Complainant’s GEICO mark, that Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that Respondent registered and used the domain in bad faith. The findings relied particularly on Complainant’s longstanding trademark rights, Respondent’s presumed knowledge of the extensively advertised GEICO mark, and use of the domain for pay-per-click links that included a competitor-associated link.
The timeline behind geico.vip
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
This decision illustrates a straightforward exact-mark domain dispute in which an unusual gTLD did not reduce confusing similarity and instead had potential affiliation significance. The Panel considered that “.vip” could suggest a website for special customers of the trademark owner. Combined with longstanding rights, extensive advertising, and competitor-related pay-per-click use, that feature supported a finding of knowing registration and commercial bad-faith use.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Government Employees Insurance Company v. David Waycaster Case No. D2019-1964 1. The Parties Complainant is Government Employees Insurance Company, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Burns & Levinson LLP, United States. Respondent is David Waycaster, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <geico.vip> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 12, 2019. On August 13, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on August 20, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 25, 2019. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 2, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 22, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 23, 2019. The Center appointed Timothy D. Casey as the sole panelist in this matter on October 15, 2019. 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 is a well-known insurance company trading under the name GEICO (the “GEICO Mark”) that has provided insurance services since 1936. Insurance services include automobile, motorcycle, homeowners, rental, condominium, flood, mobile home, and others. Complainant has numerous Untied States registered trademarks that wholly incorporate the GEICO Mark, including: Mark International Class Registration No. Registration Date GEICO 36 763,274 January 14, 1964 GEICO 36 2,601,179 July 30, 2002 GEICO DIRECT 16 1,442,076 June 9, 1987 GEICO DIRECT 36 2,071,336 June 17, 1997 GEICO AUTO REPAIR XPRESS 36 2,982,260 August 2, 2005 GEICO MOTORCYCLE 36 3,262,263 July 10, 2007 Complainant has over 17 million policies and insures more than 28 million vehicles, as well as over 40,000 employees. Complainant advertises extensively to promote, market and develop the GEICO Mark through television, print media and the Internet, resulting in a highly recognizable identifier of its goods and services throughout the United States. Complainant operates a website located at “www.geico.com”, which Complainant uses to promote and sell its motor vehicle insurance services and to enable computer users to access information regarding insurance services, manage their policies and claims, learn more about Complainant and obtain insurance quotes. The disputed domain name was registered on April 4, 2019. The disputed domain name is not known to have resolved to a website that featured any content other than pay-per-click advertising, including advertisements with third parties competing with Complainant’s business. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, which includes the GEICO Mark in its entirety, is confusingly similar to the GEICO Mark, and that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.vip” is irrelevant in terms of differentiating or distinguishing the disputed domain name from the GEICO Mark. Complainant further contends that Respondent has not authorized Respondent to use the GEICO Mark or to register the disputed domain name. Respondent did not respond to Complainant’s counsel’s letter demanding Respondent cease use of the GEICO Mark and transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant. Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant, has not received any license, consent to use the GEICO Mark, and has never been known by the disputed domain name. Complainant believes Respondent is using the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users and consumers looking for legitimate services of Complainant and its authorized partners to Respondent’s webpage by creating a likelihood of confusion with the GEICO Mark, all for commercial gain. The similarity between the disputed domain name and the GEICO Mark, according to Complainant, given the relative notoriety of the GEICO Mark makes it unlikely that Respondent selected the disputed domain name by accident. Complainant further contends that Respondent has not demonstrated use of or preparation to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, as evidenced by the pay-per-click links of Respondent’s website, some related to insurance services and providers. Complainant therefore asserts that Respondent’s pattern of conduct seeks to take advantage of Complainant’s established brands for its own profit and benefit, which does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or establish a legitimate interest under the Policy. As for evidence of registration in bad faith, Complainant contends that it is simply inconceivable that the disputed domain name was registered without knowledge of the GEICO Mark. Given Complainant’s extensive advertising, Respondent either had actual notice of the GEICO Mark or could have readily determined the existence of the GEICO Mark through a basic domain name search. Further, Complainant contends that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the GEICO Mark that would be likely to cause consumers to unwittingly transact business with and/or rely on information provided by Respondent assuming such services to be provided by, sponsored by, affiliated with or endorsed by Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant’s use of the GEICO Mark as early as 1936, more than 80 years prior to registration of the disputed domain name, and Complainant’s registration of many GEICO Marks since 1964, are more than sufficient to establish that Complainant has trademark rights in the GEICO Mark. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the GEICO Mark and is confusingly similar to the GEICO Mark. Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD is insufficient to change the overall impression of the disputed domain name as being confusingly similar to Complainant’s GEICO Mark. The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the GEICO Mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use or register the disputed domain name. The Panel also agrees that operation of a website including pay-per-click links, at least one of them associated with a competitor to Complainant’s services, apparently in an effort to obtain click-through revenue, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Given i) the timing of Complainant’s first use and first registration of the GEICO Mark and Complainant’s use of the GEICO Mark in association with the noted services, ii) the nature of the disputed domain name, wherein the use of the gTLD “.vip” rather than “.com” may merely indicate to some users that Respondent’s website is for special customers of Complainant, iii) the subsequent timing of the registration of the disputed domain name, iv) Complainant’s prior trademark rights in the United States, v) Complainant’s extensive advertising in the United States where Respondent is located, and vi) evidence of Respondent’s subsequent usage, the Panel finds that Respondent clearly knew of the GEICO Mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name was therefore in bad faith. In addition, the Panel finds the subsequent usage of the disputed domain name, as previously described, to constitute use in bad faith consistent with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <geico.vip> be transferred to Complainant. Timothy D. Casey Sole Panelist Date: October 30, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around geico.vip
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
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.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore 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.