The Complainant is Allstate Insurance Company, United States of America, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245825904, Canada / Curran Kwan, United States of America (“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 January 22, 2020. On January 22, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 22, 2020, 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 January 24, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on January 29, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 January 29, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 18, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 19, 2020. The Center appointed William F.Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on March 2, 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 was founded in 1931 and is the United States’ largest publicly held personal lines insurance company. The ALLSTATE mark is widely known. The Complainant is the owner of the registered trademark ALLSTATE, which was first registered on June 27, 1961, United States trademark registration No. 717683 (the “Mark”). The Complainant owns and operates the website “www.allstate.com”. The Complainant also has a significant presence on numerous social media sites including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and others. The disputed domain was registered on November 6, 2019. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark because the disputed domain name is composed of the Mark followed by the dictionary terms “insurance” and “firm”. The Complainant asserts the Respondent was never authorized to use the disputed domain name or the Mark and is not conducting any bona fide business in connection with the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith as part of a scheme to entice unsuspecting persons to submit “employment” applications to the Respondent revealing confidential and personal information. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) 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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark. The disputed domain name is composed by merely adding the dictionary terms “insurance” and “firm” as suffixes to the Mark. See generally Allstate Insurance Company v. Gabriel Sosa,WIPO Case No. D2019-2381; Allstate Insurance Company v. Michal restl c/o Dynadot Registrant,WIPO Case No. D2019-2206. Noting the Mark is recognizable within the 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 WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that the Complainant has specifically disavowed providing the Respondent with any license or permission to use the Mark and has provided evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in a fraudulent scheme, thus making out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Such prima facie case having been put forward, the burden of production then shifted to the Respondent to rebut the Complainant’s assertion or to demonstrate bona fide use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence demonstrating any bona fide use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website, and the Complainant’s exhibits demonstrate an improper use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent (see section 6.C below) which further underscores the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant’s annexes demonstrate that the Respondent utilized email addresses associated with the disputed domain name to lure unsuspecting persons into submitting “employment applications” revealing personal information and subjecting the applicant to further targeting and phishing. The Respondent’s apparent “employment theft scam” includes the use of bogus employment offering letter, invoices, and checks bearing the Mark. The Respondent’s fraudulent conduct demonstrates that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. L’ Oréal v. Cimpress Schweiz GmbH,WIPO Case No. DCO2017-0021; Syngenta Participations AG v. Simon Laidler / Who Is Agent, WhoIs Privacy Protection Service, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2014-1702; Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton LLC, Sheraton International Inc. v. Isaac Isaac,WIPO Case No. D2011-1275. The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: March 15, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy