Statefarminsuranceonline.org

The timeline behind statefarminsuranceonline.org

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

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

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Manasseh Gideon d/b/a State Farmers Ass. Claim Number: FA0703000947083 PARTIES Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Janice K. Forrest, of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, One State Farm Plaza, A-3, Bloomington, IL 61710. Respondent is Manasseh Gideon d/b/a State Farmers Ass. (“Respondent”), 235 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, FL 33139. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <statefarminsuranceonline.org>, registered with Tucows, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. John J. Upchurch as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 27, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 28, 2007. On March 28, 2007, Tucows, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <statefarminsuranceonline.org> domain name is registered with Tucows, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On April 2, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 23, 2007, by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@statefarminsuranceonline.org by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On April 30, 2007 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <statefarminsuranceonline.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM INSURANCE mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarminsuranceonline.org> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <statefarminsuranceonline.org> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, is a nationally well-known company in the insurance and financial services industry. Complainant has established a recognized presence on television and other media. In connection with its financial and insurance products and services, Complainant has registered numerous marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), including STATE FARM (Reg. No. 1,979,585 issued June 11, 1996) and STATE FARM INSURANCE (Reg. No. 1,125,010 issued September 11, 1979). Respondent registered the <statefarminsuranceonline.org> domain name on January 14, 2007. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays a static page containing only the phrase “No forwarding set for www.statefarminsuranceonline.org.” DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." 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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”). 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has established rights in the STATE FARM INSURANCE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”). Respondent’s <statefarminsuranceonline.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM INSURANCE mark because the domain name fully incorporates Complainant’s mark, adds the generic term “online,” and adds the generic top-level domain “.org.” The Panel finds that the addition of the term “online” and a top-level domain do not sufficiently distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Broadcom Corp. v. Domain Depot, FA 96854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2001) (finding the <broadcomonline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s BROADCOM mark); see also Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarminsuranceonline.org> domain name. Complainant has the initial burden of proof in asserting that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist). Respondent’s failure to answer the Complaint raises a presumption that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v. Tweed, D2000-0418 (WIPO June 20, 2000) (“By not submitting a response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate, pursuant to ¶ 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name”). Nevertheless, the Panel will examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c). Complainant asserts that Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s STATE FARM INSURANCE mark and that Respondent is not associated with, affiliated with, an agent of, or sponsored by Complainant in any way. Despite Respondent’s WHOIS information listing Respondent’s organization as “State Farmers Ass.,” there is no affirmative evidence in the record that Respondent has ever been commonly known by the <statefarminsuranceonline.org> domain name prior to its registration of the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Yoga Works, Inc. v. Arpita, FA 155461 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not “commonly known by” the <shantiyogaworks.com> domain name despite listing its name as “Shanti Yoga Works” in its WHOIS contact information because there was “no affirmative evidence before the Panel that the respondent was ever ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name prior to its registration of the disputed domain name”); see also Nature’s Path Foods Inc. v. Natures Path, Inc., FA 237452 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 2, 2004) (“In its WHOIS contact information, Respondent lists its name and its administrative contact as ‘Natures Path, Inc.’ However, since Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint, there has not been any affirmative evidence provided to the Panel showing that Respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name prior to its registration of the domain name.”). The disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays one static phrase that indicates the domain name is not currently active. The Panel finds that such inactive use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitmate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Boeing Co. v. Bressi, D2000-1164 (WIPO Oct. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent has advanced no basis on which the panel could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names, and no commercial use of the domain names has been established); see also Ziegenfelder Co. v. VMH Enter., Inc., D2000-0039 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding that failure to provide a product or service or develop the site demonstrates that the respondent had not established any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent has not made any use of the <statefarminsuranceonline.org> domain name since its registration in January 2007. Respondent’s failure to use the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM INSURANCE mark, is evidence of bad faith use and registration for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s non-use of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that non-use of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <statefarminsuranceonline.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. John J. Upchurch, Panelist Dated: May 14, 2007 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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