The Complainant is Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”), United States of America (“United States”), represented by Burns & Levinson LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Abderrahman El Idrissi, Morocco. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 6, 2019. On December 9, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 12, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 23, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and requesting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On the same day, the Center has also indicated to the Complainant in English and French that the language of the Registration Agreement was French, and invited the Complainant to provide sufficient evidence of an agreement between the Parties for English to be the language of proceeding, a Complaint translated into French, or a request for English to be the language of proceeding. The Complainant filed a request for English to be the language of proceeding and an amended Complaint on December 26, 2019. The Respondent did not comment on the language of proceeding. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 in English and French of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 30, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 19, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 20, 2020. The Center appointed Benjamin Fontaine as the sole panelist in this matter on January 27, 2020. 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 indicates that it is a well-known insurance company that has provided insurance services since 1936. The Complainant offers numerous types of insurance services including automobile, motorcycle, homeowners, rental, condominium, flood, mobile home, personal umbrella, and overseas insurance. The Complainant has over 17 million policies and insures more than 28 million vehicles, with a workforce of over 40,000 employees. All these services are rendered under the umbrella brand GEICO, which is the subject of several trademark registrations. For the purpose of this Complaint, The Complainant relies in particular on the following rights: - United States trademark GEICO (word) no. 763274, registered on January 14, 1964; - United States trademark GEICO DIRECT (word) no. 2071336, registered on June 17, 1997. The services offered by the Complainant are available in particular through a website located at “www.geico.com”. The disputed domain name was registered on October 16, 2019. The Panel could not access the website hosted under the disputed domain name, as it is no longer active. However, the Complainant has filed with its Complaint a screenshot of the webpage dated November 14, 2019. Under the heading “GEICO car insurance quote”, the webpage displayed a number of news posts, and offered links to a number of insurance companies, or insurance intermediaries, including ING and Everquote. Very shortly after the registration of the disputed domain name, on October 18, 2019, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent, requesting its voluntary transfer. The Respondent did not respond, and accordingly the Complainant initiated this proceeding. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant On the first element of the Policy, the Complainant indicates that the disputed domain name reproduces entirely its trademark GEICO. It stresses that the addition of the words “car”, “insurance”, and “quote” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. On the second element of the Policy, the Complainant highlights in particular 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. Besides, the operation of a pay-per-click scheme based on the usurpation of a third party’s trademark does not amount to a bone fide offering of goods and services. On the third element of the Policy, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It argues that it is simply inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the existence of the trademark GEICO. A simple search online would have revealed the existence and scope of this longstanding and well-known brand. Besides, the Complainant indicates that “The Disputed Domain Name is used to trade on the goodwill associated with Complainant and its GEICO Mark by redirecting to a third party website featuring a combination of news and advertising that does not relate at all to the automobile insurance services that the Complainant provides. It is more than likely that the Respondent chose the Disputed Domain Name to increase Internet traffic to its own website due to the Complainant’s worldwide reputation. Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name for the sole purpose of attracting a volume of Internet traffic to its own website is evidence of bad faith use”. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Language of the Proceeding In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, “Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.” In this matter the default language of the proceeding should be French, as the language of the Registration Agreement is in that language. The Complainant, however, filed its Complaint in English and asked for English to be the language of the proceeding. The Panel confirms that this request should be granted, in view of the following circumstances: first, the disputed domain name Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove all of the following three elements in order to be successful in these proceedings: (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 was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name Therefore, the first element of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. In this case, the Complainant has sufficiently argued that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to register and use the disputed domain name. Besides, the use of the disputed domain name to host a webpage including links related to insurance companies or insurance intermediaries does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. Accordingly, The Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In order to prevail under the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which, without limitation, are deemed to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. These are: (i) circumstances indicating that [a respondent has] registered or acquired a disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name to the complainant or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [the respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or (ii) [the respondent has] registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the complainant from reflecting the complainant’s trademark or service mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) [the respondent has] registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the disputed domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location. Regarding, firstly, the bad faith registration, the Panel finds that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its rights over the trademark GEICO, when registering the disputed domain name. “Geico” is indeed a coined word which is immediately linked to the Complainant when conducting a search online on this word. Besides, the combination of the words “geico” and “car”, “insurance”, “quote” confirms prior knowledge of the main activities conducted by the Complainant under the trademark GEICO. In other words, the very structure of the disputed domain name itself is equivalent to a self-admission by the Respondent of the prior knowledge of the Complainant, its trademark GEICO, and its activities in the field of automotive insurance. Regarding, secondly, the bad faith use, the Respondent is manifestly conducting a pay-per-click revenue scheme by attracting users to a website in which it displays a mix of news posts and links to competitors of the Complainant. This is indicative of bad faith, even if the webpage is configured automatically by the registrar or any other party. Indeed, in accordance with section 3.5 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), “particularly with respect to “automatically” generated pay-per-click links, panels have held that a respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for content appearing on the website associated with its domain name (nor would such links ipso facto vest the respondent with rights or legitimate interests). Neither the fact that such links are generated by a third party such as a registrar or auction platform (or their affiliate), nor the fact that the respondent itself may not have directly profited, would by itself prevent a finding of bad faith.” Further, the bad faith registration and use are confirmed here also by the lack of reaction of the Respondent, as outlined in the Complaint. Accordingly, the third criteria element set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is also satisfied. 8. 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 Benjamin Fontaine
Sole Panelist
Date: February 7, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy