Westmore · UDRP DecisionGeicowarrantyco.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <geicowarrantyco.com> after finding that the domain was confusingly similar to the GEICO mark, that Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the domain was registered and used in bad faith. The domain incorporated GEICO in full with the terms “warranty” and “co” and resolved to a parked registrar page indicating that it might be available for sale. Respondent did not file a response.
The timeline behind geicowarrantyco.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind geicowarrantyco.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates the combined significance of full-mark incorporation, an unrebutted prima facie case, longstanding trademark rights, and a parked page indicating possible sale. The Panel treated the domain’s sale-related use and the reputation of GEICO as sufficient to establish targeting and bad faith.
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. Data LLC, Data Guardian LLC Case No. D2021-3530 1. The Parties Complainant is Government Employees Insurance Company, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Burns & Levinson LLP, United States of America. Respondent is Data LLC, Data Guardian LLC, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <geicowarrantyco.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 22, 2021. On October 25, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 25, 2021, 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 October 26, 2021 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 October 31, 2021. 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 15, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 5, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 6, 2021. The Center appointed Michael A. Albert as the sole panelist in this matter on December 17, 2021. 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 an internationally known insurance provider who has provided its insurance services – including insurance brokerage and underwriting for automobiles, motorcycles, homeowners, renters, condominiums, mobile homes, commercial properties, overseas travel, floods, and boats – throughout the United States under the trademark GEICO since at least 1948. Complainant holds trademark registrations for its trademark GEICO, including trademarks registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, e.g. , Registration No. 763274, registered on January 14, 1964, and Registration No. 2601179, registered on July 30, 2002, as well as a trademark registered with the European Union Intellectual Property Office, Registration No. 1178718, registered on September 4, 2013, and an International Registration, No. 1178718, registered on September 4, 2013. Through extensive use and promotional activities, the trademark GEICO has become uniquely associated with Complainant and its services. Complainant has over 17 million policies and insures more than 28 million vehicles. Complainant also has over 40,000 employees, and is one of the fastest-growing auto insurers in the United States. Complainant maintains various social media accounts under its GEICO mark, including on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and LinkedIn, each of which garner tens of thousands, and in some cases millions, of followers. In connection with its insurance products and services, Complainant has established a website located at “www.geico.com”, which Complainant uses to promote and sell its insurance services under its GEICO trademark. The “www.geico.com” website enables computer users to: access information regarding Complainant’s insurance services, manage their policies and claims, learn more about Complainant, and obtain insurance quotes. This disputed domain name <geicowarrantyco.com> was registered on November 21, 2020. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked registrar page indicating the disputed domain name may be available for sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name incorporates the distinctive GEICO trademark and is therefore identical or confusingly similar to the GEICO trademark, notwithstanding the inclusion of the generic or descriptive terms “warranty” and “co”. Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because there is no evidence that: (i) Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name relates to a bona fide offering of goods or services; (ii) Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name; or; (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant has not given Respondent authorization for the use of its GEICO trademark in any form, nor does the Respondent offer any legitimate GEICO services on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Respondent’s incorporation of Complainant’s famous, widely-known GEICO trademark into the disputed domain name creates a presumption of bad faith. The offer for sale of the disputed domain name in these circumstances is suggestive of bad faith, and it is implausible the disputed domain name was registered for legitimate speculation, rather than to specifically target Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known GEICO mark because it contains the entirety of Complainant’s mark with the addition of “warranty” and “co”, and the generic Top‑Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. Numerous UDRP panels deciding cases under the Policy have held that the incorporation of a complainant’s well-known mark in full in a disputed domain name is a compelling factor in favor of a finding of confusing similarity, and that the addition of other terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. v. Racing Connection / The Racin’ Connection, Inc. , WIPO Case No. D2007-1524 . See also, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.7 and 1.8. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent is not known by Complainant’s mark. Complainant confirms that it has not authorized Respondent’s use of the GEICO trademark or the registration of the disputed domain name. Respondent did not respond to the Complaint. Complainant satisfied its burden to make a prima facie case, which Respondent failed to rebut. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Respondent uses the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it through a domain name marketplace to unfairly profit from Complainant’s reputation, in violation of the Policy. Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registrations of the disputed domain name. Given the long use and fame of Complainant’s GEICO marks, Respondent clearly knew or should have known of the GEICO mark at the time Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name. Such knowledge is sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 <geicowarrantyco.com> be transferred to Complainant. Michael A. Albert Sole Panelist Date: December 30, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around geicowarrantyco.com
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.