The Complainant is Government Employees Insurance Company ("GEICO") of Washington, United States of America ("United States") represented by Burns & Levinson LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Michal Restl c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 25, 2018. On July 26, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 26, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details information for the disputed domain name.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 30, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 19, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on August 20, 2018.
The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on August 23, 2018. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a well-known insurance company that has been trading under the trademark GEICO (the "GEICO Mark") for over 80 years. The Complainant owns numerous trademarks and service marks that are registered in the United States, and that wholly incorporate the GEICO Mark or iconic visual representations thereof, including, for example, Reg. No. 763,274, for the word GEICO, issued on January 14, 1964.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 19, 2011. The disputed domain name has been used to direct web users' browsers to third-party websites that offer products or services unrelated to the Complainant. 5. Parties' Contentions A. The Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademarks; that the Respondent has no 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. B. The Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely, that:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant undoubtedly has rights in the GEICO Mark. The mark is associated with one of the most recognizable insurance brands in the United States market, having been in widespread use for many years. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the GEICO Mark. It contains the mark in its entirety, accompanied only by the dictionary term "sales" and the designation "2" (presumably intended to be pronounced like and have the meaning of the word "to"). This additional material (along with the generic Top-Level Domain ".com") does not meaningfully distinguish the disputed domain name from the GEICO Mark for purposes of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds in favor of the Complainant on this first element. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
A complainant succeeds under this element if it makes a prima facie showing that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that prima facie showing remains unrebutted by the respondent. The Complainant in this case asserts that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the GEICO Mark in a domain name or in any other manner. And the Complainant believes that the Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees with the Complainant's assertion that the use of the disputed domain name in these circumstances to direct visitors to websites unconnected with the Complainant does not constitute use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, nor can it be considered a legitimate use of the disputed domain name. These assertions establish the Complainant's prima facie case. The Respondent has not answered the Complainant's assertions, and, seeing no basis in the record to overcome the Complainant's prima facie showing, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this second element. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Because the Complainant's marks are well-known, it is implausible to believe that the Respondent was not aware of those marks when it registered the disputed domain name. In the circumstances of this case, such a showing is sufficient to establish bad faith registration of the disputed domain name. Bad faith use is shown from the Respondent's activities of using the disputed domain name to redirect web users to websites unrelated to the Complainant. See, Popular Enterprises, LLC v. American Consumers First et al.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0742 (using confusingly similar domain names to redirect web users away from the complainant's website was evidence of bad faith). For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully met this third element. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: August 25, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy