Statefarmprotection.net

The timeline behind statefarmprotection.net

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. GUMIYO.COM / GUMIYO SUPPORT Claim Number: FA1412001594745 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 GUMIYO.COM / GUMIYO SUPPORT (“Respondent”), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <statefarmprotection.net>, registered with ENOM, INC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 11, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 11, 2014. On December 11, 2014, ENOM, INC. confirmed by email to the National Arbitration Forum that the <statefarmprotection.net> domain name is registered with ENOM, INC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. ENOM, INC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the ENOM, INC. 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 December 11, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 31, 2014 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@statefarmprotection.net. Also on December 11, 2014, 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 January 7, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a nationally known company engaged in the insurance and financial services industries. Complainant began using the STATE FARM mark in 1930. Complainant’s marks registered in the United States include STATE FARM (registered in 1996) and others. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <statefarmprotection.net> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM marks. Complainant contends further that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In support thereof, Complainant states that it has no association with Respondent, that it has not authorized Respondent to use its mark, and that Respondent has never been known by the domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to what appears to be a unrelated website for a sporting goods store in Kentucky. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used 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 The disputed domain name is comprised of the Complainant’s registered STATE FARM mark, the generic term “protection,” and the “.net” top-level domain suffix. Neither of the additions substantially diminishes the similarity between the domain name and Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Joe Villa c/o Stem Cell Capital Inc., FA 1530548 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 24, 2013) (finding <statefarmpropertyclaims.net> confusingly similar to STATE FARM). The Panel therefore considers the domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark without authorization. The website to which the domain name resolves appears to be merely some sort of placeholder, as it is incomplete and bears no apparent connection to either party nor to the domain name itself. Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that the domain name was acquired “primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name.” Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that “by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent’s] web site or location.” These circumstances are indicative of bad faith, but the list in paragraph 4(b) is merely illustrative, and bad faith may be found based upon other circumstances in appropriate cases. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. GRACE ROBINSON, FA 1525085 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 8, 2013). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s well-known mark, along with a term closely associated with services offered by Complainant, and Respondent has not come forward to offer any explanation for its registration or use of the domain name. Under the circumstances, the Panel infers that Respondent harbors an intent to profit either by reselling the domain name to Complainant or a competitor thereof or by using it to create confusion with Complainant’s mark, and that the placeholder site to which the domain name currently resolves is somehow related to one or both of these purposes. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <statefarmprotection.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: January 8, 2015 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.