The Complainant is Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”), United States of America (“United States”), represented by Burns & Levinson LLP, United States.
The Respondent is 钱梦聃 (Meng Dan Qian), China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 23, 2020. On July 24, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On July 25, 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 August 7, 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 amended Complaint in English on August 12, 2020. On August 7, 2020, the Center transmitted an email communication to the Parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On August 7, 2020, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the 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 Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 20, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 9, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 10, 2020. The Center appointed Kar Liang Soh as the sole panelist in this matter on September 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. 4. Factual Background The Complainant has been providing various insurance services since 1936 and has almost 80 years of trading history under trademarks incorporating the word GEICO (the GEICO Marks). These include automobile, homeowners, personal umbrella, and overseas insurance. It has over 40,000 employees and accounts for over 17 million policies and insures over 28 million vehicles. The Complainant has been using the GEICO Marks in relation to its services, promoting them through television, print media and the Internet. Examples of use of the GEICO Marks can be found on the Complainant’s website at “www.geico.com”. The Complainant’s customers are able to access information about the Complainant’s products, manage their policies and claims and obtain quotes on the website. The Complainant additionally promotes its insurance services for pleasure boats, charter boats and the like through a website at “www.geicomarine.com”. The domain name The Complainant holds various trademark registrations for the GEICO Marks including: Trademark Jurisdiction Trademark No. Registration Date GEICO United States 0,763,274 January 14, 1964 GEICO MOTORCYCLE United States 3,262,263 July 10, 2007 The Disputed Domain Name was registered on June 24, 2020. On or about July 20, 2020, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a parking page, which featured prominent links entitled “Marine Insurance”, “Boat Insurance”, “Marine Boat Insurance”, “Semi Truck Insurance Policies”, “Marine Boat Insurance”, “General Insurance”, and “Geico Insurance Agency”. On or about August 20, 2020, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a parking page, which featured prominent links entitled “Marine Insurance”, “Boat Insurance”, “Marine Boat Insurance”, “General Insurance”, “Geico insurance”, “Compare the Pet Insurance”, and “Confused Insurance”. One or more of these links appear to redirect visitors to third party websites offering insurance services, including an apparent online quotation request form. The little information available about the Respondent, including the Respondent’s identity and details, was disclosed by the Registrar pursuant to this proceeding. The Respondent appears to be an individual from China. Prior to the Complaint, the Complainant notified the Respondent via the Registrar’s portal of the Respondent’s wrongful use of the Disputed Domain Name and demanded its transfer by July 6, 2020. The Respondent did not respond. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that: a) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the GEICO Marks. The Disputed Domain Name fully incorporates the word GEICO and adds only a typo of the generic term “marine” – “marin” – which is insufficient to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the GEICO Marks; b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any licence or consent to use the GEICO Marks in a domain name or any manner. The Respondent has never been known by the Disputed Domain Name. The use of the Disputed Domain Name to redirect to third party websites is not a legitimate interest. The Disputed Domain Name is not a name that the Respondent would have legitimately and randomly chosen to use; and c) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name to profit off the Complainant’s rights in the GEICO Marks. It is simply inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s rights in the GEICO Marks. A simple Internet search would have revealed the Complainant’s use of the GEICO Marks. The Respondent’s use of the GEICO Marks to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website is evidence of bad faith. The Respondent’s website contains apparent pay-per-click links to third party websites featuring the Complainant’s competitors’ services. The Respondent’s use of privacy protection service to conceal its identity and failure to respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter further supports a finding of bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the Proceeding As the language of the Registration Agreement is Chinese, the default language of the proceeding is also Chinese. However, under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel has the discretion to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances. In this case, the Complainant has requested that English be adopted as the language of the proceeding. Having considered the circumstances, the Panel grants the Complainant’s request. In particular, the Panel is influenced by the following circumstances: a) The Complainant is unable to communicate in Chinese; b) The Respondent appears to have some knowledge of English as the parking website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name is entirely in English c) The Complainant would be placed under a significant burden additionally leading to delays in the proceeding should Chinese be adopted as the language of this proceeding; d) The Respondent has chosen not to participate in the proceeding and has not objected to the Complainant’s request for English to be the language of the proceeding; and e) The Panel is bilingual in English and Chinese and is well equipped to manage the proceeding in either or both languages. 6.2 Substantive Issues To succeed in this proceeding, the Complainant must show that the following limbs of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are established on the facts: a) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and c) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The evidence shows that the Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for the GEICO Marks and clearly has rights in the GEICO Marks. It is obvious that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the mark GEICO in its entirety. The Complainant is correct in submitting that the only relevant difference between the GEICO Marks and the Disputed Domain Name is the addition of the suffix “marin” to the latter. It is also undeniable that “marin” is an obvious misspelling of the dictionary word “marine” minus the final letter “e”. The incorporation of the misspelling of the word “marine” as a suffix to the word GEICO in the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent it from being confusingly similar to the GEICO Marks. Therefore, the Panel holds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has affirmed that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any licence or consent to use the GEICO Marks in a domain name or any manner. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or has any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. On the other hand, the evidence shows that the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a website, which prominently associated the word GEICO with insurance services. More than that, the website prominently featured the word combination “Marine Insurance”, wherein the word “marine” is spelt correctly with the final letter “e”. In the absence of any cogent explanation or response, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Respondent’s adoption of a domain name combining the word GEICO and a misspelling of the word “marine”, use of the GEICO Marks on the website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name, association of the word GEICO and “marine” without the misspelling on the website, and focus on insurance services on the website are highly informative. The weight of the evidence points incontrovertibly to the fact that the Respondent is fully aware of the GEICO Marks and the Complainant’s insurance services, including marine insurance services. The Panel finds any alternative conclusion inconceivable in the circumstances. It is basic common sense for any person considering the adoption of a domain name to conduct an Internet search to find out if it is in use in some form or another. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that such a search of the Disputed Domain Name would have readily revealed the GEICO Marks, the Complainant and the Complainant’s services. Therefore, the Respondent must have adopted the Disputed Domain Name despite being aware of the same, which begs the question “why”. The Panel is reminded of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, which outlines a non-exhaustive circumstance of bad faith registration and use. The paragraph states: “by using the domain name, you 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 complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” The evidence strongly suggests that the Respondent has an intention to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain. The Panel notes that the website was designed to redirect visitors to third party commercial sites offering insurance services as well as to quotation request forms, which must obviously have an objective of commercial gain. The Disputed Domain Name is a deliberate typographical misspelling of “GEICO marine”, which the Complainant has registered as the domain name It is reasonable to expect someone in the Respondent’s shoes to counter or deny false allegations of bad faith vehemently. The fact that the Respondent has chosen to remain silent encourages the Panel to draw an adverse inference that the allegations of the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name are justified and true. Having considered the circumstances as represented by the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name 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 Kar Liang Soh
Sole Panelist
Date: October 16, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy