Geico-progressive-state-farm-car-insurance.com

The timeline behind geico-progressive-state-farm-car-insurance.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. fernando fischer Claim Number: FA1207001453363 PARTIES Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Sherri Dunbar of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is fernando fischer (“Respondent”), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <geico-progressive-state-farm-car-insurance.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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. Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 13, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on July 13, 2012. On July 17, 2012, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <geico-progressive-state-farm-car-insurance.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 17, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 6, 2012 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@geico-progressive-state-farm-car-insurance.com. Also on July 17, 2012, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 8, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed 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" 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 any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be cancelled. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant A. Complainant: a. Complainant registered the STATE FARM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,979,585 registered June 11, 1996); b. Respondent’s <geico-progressive-state-farm-car-insurance.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark; c. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; d. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; e. Respondent resolves the disputed domain name to a website offering links to Complainant’s competitors in the insurance industry; f. Respondent’s disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business; g. Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s STATE FARM mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. Complainant has rights in its STATE FARM mark. 2. Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. 3. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name. 4. Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. 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." 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. 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.”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant claims that it established its rights in the STATE FARM mark by registering it with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,979,585 registered June 11, 1996). Complainant provides a trademark certificate issued by the USPTO to support its claim, which the Panel notes identifies Complainant as the owner of said registration. See Complainant’s Exhibit 1. Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the rights requirement of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by registering the STATE FARM mark with the USPTO. See AOL LLC v. Interrante, FA 681239 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2006) (finding that where the complainant had submitted evidence of its registration with the USPTO, “such evidence establishes complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Complainant also claims that Respondent’s <geico-progressive-state-farm-car-insurance.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark. The Panel notes that the disputed domain names include the entire STATE FARM mark, while including the names of other insurance companies, “geico” and “progressive.” The Panel also notes that the disputed domain name adds the descriptive terms “car” and “insurance,” while also adding hyphens, adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” and removing the space between the terms. Based upon the alterations listed above, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <geico-progressive-state-farm-car-insurance.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Mahony, FA 112559 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2002) (holding the domain name to be confusingly similar where <e-viagra-xenical-celebrex-propecia.com> merely includes the addition of related industry-specific words, namely, the marks of the complainant’s competitors); see also Eastman Chem. Co. v. Patel, FA 524752 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2005) (“Therefore, the Panel concludes that the addition of a term descriptive of Complainant’s business, the addition of a hyphen, and the addition of the gTLD ‘.com’ are insufficient to distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark.”); see also Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant states that Respondent is not an agent of Complainant’s is not authorized to use the STATE FARM mark. The Panel notes that the WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “fernando fischer.” Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark). Complainant also asserts that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Complainant states that Respondent resolves the disputed domain name to a website offering links to its competitors in the insurance industry, like GEICO and Progressive. Based upon this use, the Panel finds that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (finding that, because the “[r]espondent’s disputed domain names resolve to a website featuring a series of advertising links to various third-parties, many of whom offer products and services in direct competition with those offered under [the complainant’s] mark,” the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent’s disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business. Complainant states that the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering links to its competitors in the insurance industry. The Panel notes that Internet users may arrive at the website and click on one of the links offered. At that point, the Internet user in question may then be diverted to a competitor of Complainant’s and purchase insurance there instead. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is disrupting Complainant’s business thereby demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. v. Bigfoot Ventures LLC, FA 1195961 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2008) (“Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a parking website which provides click through revenue to Respondent and which displays links to travel-related products and services that directly compete with Complainant’s business. Accordingly, Respondent’s competing use of the disputed domain name is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). Complainant also contends that Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s STATE FARM mark. Complainant describes how the STATE FARM mark has become so well-known since Complainant initially used the mark, which the Panel notes dates back over 80 years according to Complainant’s submissions. The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STATE FARM mark when Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The Panel concludes that Respondent registered the domain in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Immigration Equality v. Brent, FA 1103571 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2008) ("That Respondent proceeded to register a domain name identical to, and with prior knowledge of Complainant's mark is sufficient to prove bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). However, the Panel notes that constructive knowledge by itself does not support of finding of bad faith. See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."). 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 <geico-progressive-state-farm-car-insurance.com> domain name be CANCELLED. Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist Dated: August 22, 2012 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.