Statefarmus.com

The timeline behind statefarmus.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. Ryleigh Gray Claim Number: FA2210002017671 PARTIES Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Nathan Vermillion of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois. Respondent is Ryleigh Gray (“Respondent”), Florida. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <statefarmus.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 26, 2022; Forum received payment on October 26, 2022. On October 27, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <statefarmus.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 October 27, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 16, 2022 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@statefarmus.com. Also on October 27, 2022, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On November 18, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 contends as follows: Complainant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, offers insurance services. Complainant asserts rights in the STATE FARM mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <statefarmus.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it contains the STATE FARM mark in its entirety, merely adding the term “US” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarmus.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s STATE FARM mark and is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to create initial interest confusion for internet users seeking information about Complainant. Respondent registered and uses the <statefarmus.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the domain name to host click-through links, redirecting users to unrelated third-party sites for commercial gain. Additionally, Respondent registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STATE FARM mark. Finally, Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s cease-and-desist letters. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has trademark rights in the STATE FARM mark. Respondent has not been authorized to use any of Complainant’s trademarks. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in STATE FARM. The <statefarmus.com> domain name addresses a parked page displaying click-through links to third parties. 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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The at-issue domain is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant’s USPTO registration of its STATE FARM mark establishes Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s STATE FARM trademark less its space, followed by the letters or term “us” and with all followed by the“.com” top level domain name. The differences between the <statefarmus.com> domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark under Policy ¶ 4 (a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that the <statefarmus.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also, Research Now Group, Inc. v. Pan Jing, FA 1735345 (Forum July 14, 2017) (“The … elimination of spacing [is] considered irrelevant when distinguishing between a mark and a domain name.”) Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. The WHOIS information for <statefarmus.com> indicates that “Ryleigh Gray” is the domain name’s registrant and there is nothing in the record indicating that Respondent is otherwise known by the <statefarmus.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Respondent’s domain name addresses a parked webpage that displays click-through links. Using the confusingly similar domain name to display hyperlinks to third parties is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See I SimScale GmbH v. Oliver Sharp, FA1401001537384 (Forum Feb. 3, 2014) (holding that the respondent’s “use of the disputed domain name to promote links to unrelated third parties is not protected as a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark, websites where the respondent presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the Policy). Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent’s <statefarmus.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without being exhaustive, circumstances are present that permit the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. As mentioned above regarding rights and interests, Respondent uses its confusingly similar <statefarmus.com> domain name to address a parked webpage offering links to third parties. Respondent’s use of the domain name diverts internet users away from Complainant’s genuine website(s) and to Respondent’s <statefarmus.com> webpage by confusing such users into falsely believing that the domain name is affiliated with Complainant. Doing so indicates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. utahhealth, FA 697821 (Forum June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Moreover, Respondent registered the <statefarmus.com> domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in STATE FARM. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s STATE FARM trademark and further shows that Respondent registered and used its <statefarmus.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name"). 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 <statefarmus.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: November 20, 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.