The Complainant is Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”), United States of America (“United States”), represented by Burns & Levinson LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domain By Proxy, LLC, United States / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 30, 2020. On March 31, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 1, 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 April 15, 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 amended Complaints on April 21, 2020 and April 23, 2020. The Complainant filed a further amendment to the Complaint on April 24, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint and 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 April 24, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 14, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 23, 2020. The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on May 29, 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. On May 6, 2020 the Complainant requested the consolidation of this proceeding with another proceeding against the same Respondent in which a complaint has previously been filed. Because of the expedited nature of these proceedings under the UDRP, absent unusual circumstances, and noting that the Center received such request 12 days after the notification of the Complaint in this proceeding, the Panel does not find it convenient or appropriate to consider two separate complaints in this proceeding and the Complainant’s request is therefore denied. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is an insurance provider incorporated under the laws of Maryland, United States. The Complainant is the owner of various trademark registrations for the mark GEICO, including for example United States trademark number 0763274 for the word mark GEICO, registered on January 14, 1964 in Class 36. The disputed domain name was registered on February 17, 2020. According to evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name has resolved to a website offering various software products for download. The Complainant has also submitted evidence that the disputed domain name has been offered for sale via “Sedo.com” with a minimum indicated price of USD 899. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that it has offered a wide range of consumer insurance products under the GEICO mark since 1936. It states that it has over 40,000 employees and has issued over 17 million insurance policies including cover for more than 28 million motor vehicles. It states that it operates a website at “www.geico.com” and that it invests significant sums to promote its business through television, print media and the Internet. Information found on its website claims assets in excess of USD 32 billion and makes reference to significant industry ratings and awards. The Complainant contends that, as a result of these matters, its mark GEICO has become a distinctive indicator of its business. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights. It claims in particular that the disputed domain name, The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that it has never authorized the Respondent to use its GEICO trademark, that the Respondent has never been known by a name corresponding to the disputed domain name and that the Respondent can only have selected the disputed domain name misleadingly to create an association with the Complainant’s GEICO trademark. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. The Complainant submits that it is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name otherwise than with knowledge of the Complainant’s GEICO trademark and with the intention of profiting from that mark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name misleadingly to attract Internet users to its website and also alleges that the software offered on that website contained malware threats. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling it for more than the out-of-pocket costs of registration, as demonstrated by the “Sedo.com” offer for sale. In addition, the Complainant submits that the Respondent ignored a cease and desist letter, has been the subject of a large number of other proceedings under the UDRP and has been found in such proceedings to have engaged in a pattern of bad faith registrations. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the 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 The Complainant has established that it has registered trademark rights in the name and mark GEICO. The disputed domain name consists of the whole of that trademark, prefixed by the letters “g” and “e”. In the view of the Panel, the incorporation of the whole of the Complainant’s trademark into the disputed domain name gives rise to confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and that trademark, which is not prevented by the prefixing of the two additional letters. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not filed a Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. There being no other evidence before the Panel of any such rights or legitimate interests, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent for its choice of the disputed domain name, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that the Respondent is likely to have registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s distinctive trademark in mind and with the intention of taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s rights in that trademark. The Panel also accepts the Complainant’s unrebutted submissions and evidence that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention of selling it for a sum in excess of its out-of-pocket costs of registration (paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy), given that the disputed domain name has a minimum indicated price of USD 899 without any evidence from the Respondent as to its expenses, and that it has used the disputed domain name misleadingly to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain, either by the sale of software products or the delivery of malware via that website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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, Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: June 7, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy