The Complainant is Government Employees Insurance Company, United States of America (the “United States”), represented by Burns & Levinson LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Sierra Mccoy, Govt, 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 29, 2020. On October 30, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On November 2, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 3, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 23, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 11, 2020. The Center appointed Colin T. O’Brien as the sole panelist in this matter on December 30, 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 Complainant is an insurance company which has provided insurance services since 1936. Complainant offers numerous types of insurance services including automobile, motorcycle, homeowners, rental, condominium, flood, mobile home, personal umbrella, and overseas insurance. Complainant trading under the trademark GEICO for nearly 80 years and owns exclusive rights in such. Complainant owns the following United States Trademark Registrations: GEICO Registration Number 763,274; Registered January 14, 1964; Complainant has over 17 million policies and insures more than 28 million vehicles. Complainant also has over 40,000 employees. Complainant operates a website at “www.geico.com” which enables computer users to: access information regarding Complainant’s insurance services, manage their policies and claims, learn more about Complainant, and obtain insurance quotes. The Disputed Domain Name The Disputed Domain Name consists entirely of the Complainant’s GEICO Mark adding only the descriptive phrase “auto claim” along with a generic Top-Level Domain. The Disputed Domain Name currently redirects to an inactive website containing a list of apparent The 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 the Respondent’s own webpage by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant, all for commercial gain. There is no evidence that the Respondent has any legitimate claims to the Disputed Domain Name and any current or conceivable future use of the Disputed Domain Name violates the Policy. The unauthorized use of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent severely harms the Complainant by tarnishing and infringing its trademarks, reputation and goodwill in the United States and around the world. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the distinctive GEICO Mark, which is identical or confusingly similar to the GEICO Mark regardless of the additional terms in the domain name. The Disputed Domain Name fully incorporates the GEICO Mark. The mere addition of the descriptive terms “auto claim” is insufficient to prevent similar confusion of the Disputed Domain Name with a registered mark. The Disputed Domain Name should be found to be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark and its use is intended to impersonate GEICO, and intercept and confuse consumers when looking for bona fide and well-known GEICO products and services or authorized partners. 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. The Respondent has never been known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent’s misappropriation of the GEICO Mark in the Disputed Domain Name was no accident. The use of the Disputed Domain Name to redirect to third-party websites is not a legitimate interest. The Respondent could have no legitimate interests in the GEICO Mark since it is not a name that the Respondent would have legitimately and randomly chosen to use. Due to the well-known and distinctive character and reputation of the GEICO Mark, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its GEICO Mark when registering the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent’s use of the GEICO Mark to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website, knowing that the Complainant had not authorized it to do so is evidence of bad faith. Respondent must have expected that any use of the Disputed Domain Name would cause harm to the Complainant. The Disputed Domain Name – wholly incorporating the GEICO Mark – is so “obviously indicative” of being authorized by Complainant that the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name would “inevitably lead to confusion of some sort.” The Complainant’s rights in the GEICO Mark also would have been obvious through basic domain name searches and other searches of the USPTO records that are readily accessible online. The Respondent is thus deemed to have constructive notice of the Complainant’s trademark rights by virtue of its federal registrations in the Marks. The Respondent’s illicit registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name long after the registration of the Complainant’s trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name. The fact that Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website containing apparent pay-per-click hyperlinks to third-party websites featuring services provided by the Complainant’s competitors is also patent evidence of bad faith. The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name supports a finding of bad faith and there is no conceivable contemplated use of the Disputed Domain Name that would not be an infringing use by the Respondent. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has demonstrated it owns registered trademark rights in the GEICO trademark in the United States. The addition of the terms “auto claim” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has presented a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The fact that the Respondent obtained the Disputed Domain Name over 70 years after the Complainant had begun using its famous GEICO mark indicates that the Respondent sought to obtain piggy-back on the GEICO mark. After a complainant has made a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to present evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See, e.g., Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455. Here, the Respondent has provided no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name; rather, the evidence suggests that it was either registered to make an undue profit based on the Complainant’s rights (See, e.g., Bottega Veneta SA v. ZhaoJiafei,WIPO Case No. D2013-1556). In the absence of any evidence rebutting the Complainant’s prima facie case indicating the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Disputed Domain Name was registered many years after the Complainant first registered and used its famous GEICO mark. The evidence provided by the Complainant makes it clear the Respondent undoubtedly knew of the Complainant’s GEICO mark and knew that it had no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. There is no benign reason for the Respondent to have registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous mark. Further, the use of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent is clearly in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) states that evidence of bad faith may include a respondent’s use of a domain name to intentionally attempt 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. The Complainant has submitted evidence that the Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name in order to direct Internet users to third party websites which offer services which compete with the Complainant. Given the fame of the Complainant’s GEICO mark, the obvious inference is that the Respondent hoped to trick either customers or employees of the Complainant to visit the website at the Disputed Domain Name to direct Internet users to a competitor’s website. This is a textbook example of bad faith use on the part of the Respondent. The Panel finds that the only plausible basis for registering and using the Disputed Domain Name has been for illegitimate and bad faith purposes. 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 Colin T. O’Brien
GEICO Registration Number 2,601,179; Registered July 30, 2002;
GEICO AUTO REPAIR XPRESS Registration Number 2,982,260; Registered August 2, 2005;
GEICO MOTORCYCLE Registration Number 3,262,263; Registered July 10, 2007.
pay-per-click links to unrelated third-party websites, including to websites of the Complainant’s competitors, such as Progressive Corporation.
Sole Panelist
Date: January 21, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy