The Complainant is Allstate Insurance Company, United States of America (“United States”), represented by SILKA AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Miriam Analia Diaz, Mexico.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 10, 2021. On September 10, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 10, 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 September 13, 2021, 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 September 16, 2021.
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 September 20, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 10, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 25, 2021.
The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on November 4, 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 BackgroundThe Complainant has been a pioneer of the insurance industry since its foundation in 1931 and is the largest publicly held personal lines insurer. The Complainant is also active in the investment sector.
The Complainant owns trademark registrations in various jurisdictions, including the United States trademark ALLSTATE (Reg. No. 0717683, registered on June 27, 1961), the United States trademark ALLSTATE (Reg. No. 0761091, registered on December 3, 1963) and the United States trademark ALLSTATE (Reg. No. 2436759, registered on March 20, 2001).
The Complainant further holds the domain name
The disputed domain name was registered on May 26, 2021 and resolved to a website purporting to be the Complainant. An email server was configured under the disputed domain name. In the meantime, the website has been deactivated.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant alleges that it has satisfied all elements of the Policy, paragraph 4.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsOn the basis of the facts and evidence introduced by the Complainant, and with regard to paragraphs 4(a), (b) and (c) of the Policy, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate its registered rights in the ALLSTATE trademark.
The ALLSTATE trademark is wholly reproduced in the disputed domain name.
A domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark for the purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of other terms in the domain name (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662). As stated in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8, “[w]here the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The nature of such additional term(s) may however bear on the assessment of the second and third elements”. Hence, the Panel holds that the addition of the terms “international” and “investment” to the Complainant’s ALLSTATE trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant has thus fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThere are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor making any bona fide use of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent used the disputed domain name to purportedly promote investment services. The Complainant has credibly alleged that the Respondent used the disputed domain name for generating revenue by offering fake investment services while taking advantage of the Complainant’s trademark notoriety. No other reason for the Respondent’s conduct is plausible, and the Respondent has failed to advance any good faith reasoning on her behalf. This cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial use.
Furthermore, the composition of the disputed domain name, wholly incorporating the Complainant’s ALLSTATE trademark and the terms “international” and “investment” (which are related to the Complainant’s activities) cannot constitute fair use in these circumstances as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.
The Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithUnder the circumstances of this case, including the composition of the disputed domain name and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the reproduction of the Complainant’s trademark along with the terms “international” and “investment” creates a likelihood of confusion between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name, considering that the added terms “international” and “investment” are related to the Complainant’s activities.
The evidence and allegations submitted by the Complainant support a finding that the Respondent was engaged in an attempt to pass herself off as the Complainant by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of her website for her own commercial benefit. The Respondent therefore used the disputed domain name in bad faith (see Claudie Pierlot v. Yinglong Ma,WIPO Case No. D2018-2466). The fact that the website at the disputed domain name has been deactivated in the meantime does not prevent a finding of bad faith.
Accordingly, the Complainant has also fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. DecisionFor 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
Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: November 5, 2021