Thestatefarmgroup.com

The timeline behind thestatefarmgroup.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.

DECISION State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Jordan Forsythe Claim Number: FA2207002005756 PARTIES Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("Complainant"), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Jordan Forsythe ("Respondent"), Washington, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <thestatefarmgroup.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC. 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 Forum electronically on July 26, 2022; the Forum received payment on July 26, 2022. On July 26, 2022, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <thestatefarmgroup.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 28, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 17, 2022 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@thestatefarmgroup.com. Also on July 28, 2022, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On August 18, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 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, and owns longstanding trademark registrations for STATE FARM and related marks in the United States and other jurisdictions. Respondent registered the disputed domain name <thestatefarmgroup.com> via a privacy registration service in June 2022. The underlying registration information provided by Respondent is at least partly fictitious. The domain name resolves to a parked page apparently generated by the registrar. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not associated with, affiliated with, or sponsored by Complainant nor authorized to use Complainant's mark. Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <thestatefarmgroup.com> is confusingly similar to its STATE FARM mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 is being 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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name <thestatefarmgroup.com> incorporates Complainant's registered STATE FARM trademark, omitting the space, and adds the generic terms "the" and "group" and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Venu Gurram, FA 1780491 (Forum May 2, 2018) (finding <statefarmgroups.com> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Xixin Xing, FA 1431735 (Forum Apr. 18, 2012) (finding <statefarmgroup.mobi> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. SaleClub Online c/o Matthew Papadakis, FA 882168 (Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding <statefarmgroup.info> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. COMholdings a/k/a VOGOholdings, FA 798899 (Forum Nov. 1, 2006) (finding <thestatefarm.com> confusingly similar to STATE FARM). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. 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 Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name, nor to have engaged in preparations for such use. These circumstances support an inference that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Deborah Sanders, FA 1976559 (Forum Jan. 11, 2022) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Venu Gurram, supra (same); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Xixin Xing, supra (same); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. SaleClub Online c/o Matthew Papadakis, supra (same); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. COMholdings a/k/a VOGOholdings, supra (same). 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 is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a 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)(iii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." 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." Respondent used a privacy registration to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's well-known mark, apparently also providing false underlying registration data. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the name. In the absence of any explanation from Respondent, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name intending to use it in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant and its mark, most likely either by selling the domain name or by using it to attract Internet users seeking Complainant, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain name for that purpose. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Deborah Sanders, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances). The Panel so finds. 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 <thestatefarmgroup.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: August 19, 2022 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.