The Complainant is Government Employees Insurance Company, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Burns & Levinson LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Joel Rosenzweig, RegC, 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 April 20, 2021. On April 21, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 23, 2021, 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 26, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On April 27, 2021, an email communication was received from the Respondent requesting for a copy of the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 29, 2021. 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 of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 30, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 20, 2021. On May 17, 2021, the Respondent requested to extend the Response due date. On May 19, 2021, the Center in accordance with paragraph 5(e) of the Rules exceptionally extended the period of time for the filing of the Response until May 30, 2021. No further communication was received from the Respondent by the extended Response due date. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 1, 2021. On June 1, 2021, another email communication was received from the Respondent. The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on June 14, 2021. 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 is a well-known insurance company that has been trading under the trademark GEICO (the “GEICO Mark”) for nearly 80 years. The Complainant owns numerous trademarks and service marks that are registered in the United States, and that wholly incorporate the GEICO Mark or iconic visual representations thereof, including, for example, Registration No. 763,274, for the word mark GEICO, issued on January 14, 1964. The disputed domain name was registered on March 28, 2021. As of the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website containing a list of apparent pay-per-click links to unrelated third-party websites, including to competitors of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. But it did submit an informal email response to the Center on June 1, 2021, stating in relevant part that it wishes to keep the disputed domain name for use with its collectibles group. Other than saying that the disputed domain name is an acronym for such group, the Respondent did not address the particular elements of the UDRP. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely, that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and The Complainant undoubtedly has rights in the GEICO Mark. The mark is associated with one of the most recognizable insurance brands in the United States market, having been in widespread use for many years. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the GEICO Mark. It contains the mark in its entirety, accompanied only by the letters “nft”. This additional material (along with the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds in favor of the Complainant on this first element. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests A complainant succeeds under this element if it makes a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that prima facie showing remains unrebutted by the Respondent. The Complainant in this case asserts 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. And the Complainant believes that the Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees with the Complainant’s assertion that the use of the disputed domain name in these circumstances to point to a website with pay-per-click links does not constitute use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. These assertions establish the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Respondent has not substantively answered the Complainant’s assertions, and, seeing no basis in the record to overcome the Complainant’s prima facie showing, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this second element. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Because the Geico Mark is so well known, it is implausible to believe that the Respondent was not aware of it when it registered the disputed domain name. In the circumstances of this case, the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith registration of the disputed domain name. Bad faith use is shown from the Respondent’s activities of using the disputed domain name to present pay-per-click links for commercial gain. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully met this third element. 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 Evan D. Brown
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Sole Panelist
Date: June 28, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy