Complainant is Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”), United States of America (“United States”), represented by Burns & Levinson LLP, United States.
Respondent is Savvy Investments, LLC Privacy ID# 836539, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 3, 2019. On October 4, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On October 4, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 18, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 7, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on November 8, 2019. The Center appointed Richard W. Page as the sole panelist in this matter on November 22, 2019. 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 GEICO is a well-known insurance company that has provided insurance services since 1936. GEICO offers numerous types of insurance services including automobile, motorcycle, homeowners, rental, condominium, flood, mobile home, personal umbrella and overseas insurance, among others. GEICO has been trading under the trademark GEICO (the “GEICO Mark”) for nearly 80 years and owns exclusive rights in such. GEICO has numerous federal trademark and service mark registrations wholly incorporate the GEICO Mark or iconic visual representations thereof, including without limitation, the following registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”): GEICO, Class 36, Registration No. 763,274, dated January 14, 1964 and GEICO, Class 36, Registration No. 2,601,179 dated July 30, 2002. GEICO has made extensive use of its distinctive GEICO Mark in connection with its services. The company invests large sums to promote and develop the GEICO Mark through television, print media and the Internet. As a result of such efforts, the GEICO Mark is a powerful, recognizable symbol of the company’s goodwill and excellent reputation. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on July 14, 2009. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that through extensive use and promotional activities using the GEICO Mark, it has become uniquely associated with the GEICO Mark. In fact, GEICO has over 17 million policies and insures more that 28 million vehicles. GEICO also has over 40,000 employees and is one of the fastest-growing auto insurers in the United States. Complainant further contends that in connection with its insurance products and services, GEICO has established a website located at “www.geico.com”, which GEICO uses to promote and sell its motor vehicle insurance services. The “www.geico.com” website enables computer users to: access information regarding GEICO’s insurance services, manage their policies and claims, learn more about GEICO and obtain insurance quotes. Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name consists entirely of the GEICO Mark adding only the letter “e” along with a generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”). Complainant further alleges that the Disputed Domain Name currently redirects to an active website that contains a list of apparent “pay-per-click” hyperlinks to unrelated websites, many of which feature services that are competitive with GEICO. Complainant declares that GEICO had not and has not authorized Respondent’s use of the GEICO Mark or the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. Indeed, after becoming aware of the Disputed Domain Name, counsel for GEICO contracted Respondent to request that Respondent cease its infringing use of the GEICO Mark and transfer the Disputed Domain Name to GEICO. Respondent has not responded to GEICO’s demand that it transfer the Disputed Domain Name to GEICO. Complainant further declares that based on Respondent’s adoption and use of a domain name that incorporates the GEICO Mark in its entirety, Complaint believes that Respondent is using and has used the Disputed Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users and consumers looking for legitimate GEICO services and/or authorized partners to Respondent’s own webpage, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion with GEICO’s webpage, all for Respondent’s illicit commercial gain. Complainant avers that there is no evidence that Respondent has any legitimate claims to the Disputed Domain Name or any current or conceivable future use of the Disputed Domain Name which does not violate the Policy. Complainant further avers that the Disputed Domain Name fully incorporates the GEICO Mark. The mere addition of the letter “e” is not sufficient to prevent confusing similarity with the GEICO Mark. Complainant further avers that domain names that constitute common or obvious misspellings of trademarks are considered confusingly similar. Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the GEICO Mark and its use is intended to impersonate the GEICO Mark and to intercept and confuse consumers when looking for bona fide and well-known GEICO products and services. Complainant further argues that Respondent has no connection or affiliation with GEICO 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. GEICO believes that Respondent has never been known by the Disputed Domain Name. GEICO further believes that Respondent’s misappropriation of the GEICO Mark in the Disputed Domain Name was no accident. Where a mark is famous, as in the instant case, it is “not one traders would legitimately choose unless seeking to create an impress of an association” with the Complainant. Complainant states that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith by doing so with knowledge of GEICO’s rights in its GEICO Mark and with and intent to profit off those rights. Complainant further states that it is simply inconceivable that Respondent was unaware of GEICO’s right in the GEICO Mark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name that fully incorporates Complainant’s famous federal registered GEICO Mark in its entirety. At a minimum, Respondent had actual notice of Complaint’s right. GEICO engages in extensive advertising, including television advertising, featuring its name and mark and has offices throughout the world. Even a simple Internet search would have revealed Complainant’s extensive use of the GEICO Mark as a source identifier. Complainant contends that its rights in the GEICO Mark also should have been obvious through basic domain name searches and other searches of the USPTO records that are readily accessible online. Respondent is thus deemed to have constructive notice of Complainant’s trademark rights by virtue of its federal registrations. Complainant further contends that Respondent’s use of the GEICO Mark to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website, know that the Complainant had not authorized it to do so is evidence of bad faith. Complainant alleges that Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name to direct visitors to insurance service providers that offer services that are competitive with Complainant is patent evidence of bad faith use. Combined with Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name to divert Internet users to pay-per-click website, the fact that Respondent has offered the Disputed Domain Name for sale supports a findi0ng of bad faith. Complainant concludes that Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name fully adopting the GEICO Mark, adding only the letter “e” in front of the mark, is textbook typosquattng and thus presumptive evidence of bad faith in the use and registration of a domain name. The fact that the registration of the Disputed Domain Name occurred long after the registration of the GEICO’s Mark proves that there is no conceivable legitimate explanation for Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall 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.” Respondent is not obliged to participate in this domain name dispute proceeding, but when it fails to do so, asserted facts that are not unreasonable will be taken as true and Respondent will subject to the inferences that flow naturally from the information provided by Complainant. See Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc.WIPO Case No. D2000-0441. Even though Respondent has failed to file a Response or to contest Complainant’s assertions, the Panel will review the evidence proffered by Complainant to verify that the essential elements of the claims are met. See section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following: i) that the Disputed Domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the GEICO Mark in which Complainant has rights; and, ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and, iii) that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant contends that it has numerous registrations of the GEICO Mark. Section 1.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that registration of a trademark is prima facie evidence of Complainant having relevant rights in the GIECO Mark. Respondent has not contested Complainant’s assertion of rights in the GEICO Mark. The Panel finds that Complainant has enforceable trademark rights in the GEICO Mark. Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 says that inclusion of the entire trademark in a domain name will be considered confusingly similar. Also see Section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 instructs that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See also Section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 instructs that gTLDs may be disregarded for purposes of assessing confusing similarity. The Panel finds that the entirety of the GEICO Mark is included in the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel further finds that the addition of the letter “e” is not distinctive and the gTLD “.com” may be disregarded for purposes of assessing confusing similarity. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the requisite element of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Paragraph 4(a)(ii) requires Complainant to prove that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that once Complainant makes a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of Respondent, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating it has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Where Respondent fails to do so, Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy allows three nonexclusive methods for the Panel to conclude that Respondent has rights or a legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the GEICO Mark. Complainant argues that Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complaiant 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. Complainant believes that Respondent has never been known by the Disputed Domain Name. GEICO further believes that Respondent’s misappropriation of the GEICO Mark in the Disputed Domain Name was no accident. Where a mark is famous, as in the instant case, it is “not one traders would legitimately choose unless seeking to create an impress of an association” with the Complainant. Complainant contends that Respondent is impersonating an authorized GEICO source for services in order to attract Internet users and consumers to its misleading website to make a profit on a pay-per-click basis. Such deception does not constitute a bona fide offering of good or services and is not a fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant has alleged sufficient facts to constitute a prima facie case. Respondent has not contested Complainant’s allegations. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the necessary elements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith in violation of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth four nonexclusive criteria for Complainant to show bad faith registration and use of domain names: (i) circumstances indicating that you [Respondent] have registered or you have acquired the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the GEICO Mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain Name; or (ii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting the GEICO Mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the Disputed Domain Name, you [Respondent] have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the GEICO Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product. Complainant contends that Respondent’s bad faith is evident in its use of the GEICO Mark was to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website, which Respondent knew Complainant had not authorized. Complainant further contends that this use of the Disputed Domain Name to direct visitors to insurance service providers that offer services that are competitive with Complainant is evidence of bad faith use. Complainant further contends that Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name to divert Internet users to a pay-per-click website. Complainant argues that the fact that Respondent has offered the Disputed Domain Name for sale further supports a finding of bad faith. Respondent has not contested these allegations. Based upon the evidence in this proceeding, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the requisite elements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Thus, Complainant has established paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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, Richard W. Page
Sole Panelist
Date: December 6, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy