Statefarmally.com

The timeline behind statefarmally.com

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. Prism Insurance c/o Prab Randhawa Claim Number: FA1107001398571 PARTIES Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Jeff Saliba of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Prism Insurance c/o Prab Randhawa (“Respondent”), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <statefarmally.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com. 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. Terry F. Peppard as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 14, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on July 14, 2011. On July 15, 2011, GoDaddy.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <statefarmally.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com 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 18, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 8, 2011 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@statefarmally.com. Also on July 18, 2011, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On August 10, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding. Respondent has failed to submit a response to the Complaint filed in this proceeding in compliance with the requirements of the Policy or its implementing Rules. However, Respondent has communicated with the National Arbitration Forum via e-mail message. The Panel will consider the contents of that e-mail communication in determining the appropriate disposition of the Complaint. 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" 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, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of a compliant 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: Complainant is the owner of the STATE FARM mark, which it uses in connection with the underwriting and marketing of insurance policies. Complainant has registrations for its STATE FARM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (including Reg. No. 1,979,585, registered June 11, 1996). Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 23, 2011. The <statefarmally.com> domain name resolves to a website displaying links to the websites of others offering insurance services competing with those provided by Complainant. Respondent’s <statefarmally.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark. Respondent does not have any rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name <statefarmally.com>. Respondent registered and uses the disputed <statefarmally.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. However, in an e-mail message addressed to the National Arbitration Forum Respondent has indicated in pertinent part as follows: “All I would like is the cost it took me to get this domain name paid to me and I’m happy to give it over to Statefarm [sic]. I don’t use the site.” DISCUSSION Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred: i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; ii. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.” Further, Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that, where a party fails to comply with requirements laid on by the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from that failure as it considers appropriate. DECISION It appears from the record that Respondent does not contest the material allegations of the Complaint. It further appears that Respondent does not object to Complainant’s request for the transfer to it of the subject domain name as prayed for in the Complaint, so that the parties have tacitly agreed to the transfer of the subject domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings. In the exceptional circumstances here presented, we conclude that no worthwhile purpose would be served by a rendition of findings otherwise customary in proceedings of this sort. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name <statefarmally.com> be forthwith TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Terry F. Peppard, Panelist Dated: August 15, 2011 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.