Statefarmonlineautoclaim.com

The timeline behind statefarmonlineautoclaim.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. Shi Lei Claim Number: FA2302002032012 PARTIES Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Sherri Dunbar of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Illinois. Respondent is Shi Lei (“Respondent”), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <statefarmonlineautoclaim.com>, registered with Cosmotown, 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. The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 15, 2023; Forum received payment on February 15, 2023. On February 15, 2023, Cosmotown, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <statefarmonlineautoclaim.com> domain name is registered with Cosmotown, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cosmotown, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cosmotown, 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 February 16, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 8, 2023 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@statefarmonlineautoclaim.com. Also on February 16, 2023, 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 March 15, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is in the insurance business. Complainant asserts rights in the STATE FARM mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. no. 4,211,626, registered June 5, 2018). Respondent’s <statefarmonlineautoclaim.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM trademark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic words “online”, “auto”, and “claim” and the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) “.com”. Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarmonlineautoclaim.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s STATE FARM mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent also does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent attempts to divert Internet users from Complainant’s website through unrelated hyperlinks. Respondent makes no demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name. Respondent registered and uses the <statefarmonlineautoclaim.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant for commercial gain. Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STATE FARM mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is in the insurance business. Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM mark based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. no. 4,211,626, registered June 5, 2018). Respondent’s <statefarmonlineautoclaim.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM trademark. Respondent registered the <statefarmonlineautoclaim.com> domain name on October 4, 2022. Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarmonlineautoclaim.com> domain name. Rather, Respondent’s domain name resolves to a parked page with click-through links. Respondent registered and uses the <statefarmonlineautoclaim.com> 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(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 Complainant has rights in the STATE FARM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon registration with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”) Respondent’s <statefarmonlineautoclaim.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM trademark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic words “online”, “auto”, and “claim” and the gTLD “.com”. Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <statefarmonlineautoclaim.com> domain name because Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s STATE FARM mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and because the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Shi Lei.” Therefore, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent also does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Syed Hussain / Domain Management, FA1410001582912 (Forum Nov. 10, 2014) (concluding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host hyperlinks, unrelated to the complainant’s business, did not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Here, Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage, showing clickable hyperlinks to unrelated law services. Respondent makes no demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (“The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant for commercial gain. While an intent to confuse consumers is not required for a finding of trademark infringement, intent to deceive is strong evidence of a likelihood of confusion under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain). Therefore, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STATE FARM mark. Therefore, Respondent registered the <statefarmonlineautoclaim.com> domain name in bad faith under 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 "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name"). Here, Complainant provides WHOIS information for both Complainant’s and Respondent’s domain names, showing Complainant’s domain was registered 29 years prior to 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 <statefarmonlineautoclaim.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist Dated: March 29, 2023 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.