The Complainant is Government Employees Insurance Company, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by Burns & Levinson LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Bin G Glu, G Design, China.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 22, 2021. On October 22, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 25, 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 October 27, 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 amended Complaint on November 2, 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 November 5, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 25, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 26, 2021.
The Center appointed Daniel Peña as the sole panelist in this matter on December 16, 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 is a U.S. company that provides numerous types of insurance services since 1936. The Complainant offers numerous types of insurance services including automobile, motorcycle, homeowners, rental, condominium, flood, mobile home, personal umbrella, and overseas insurance, among others.
The Complainant is the owner of the GEICO trademarks, including:
- U.S. trademark GEICO, on the international class 35 and 36, registration number 0763274, registered since January 14, 1964; and
- U.S. trademark GEICO, on the international class 36, registration number 2601179, registered since July 30, 2002.
The Complainant is the owner of
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its GEICO trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the GEICO trademark in its entirety. The addition of the expression “quote” does not diminish the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. Also, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the disputed domain name and therefore is irrelevant to determine the confusing similarity between the trademark and the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s name does not resemble the disputed domain name in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant. The Complainant has not licensed or consented to the Respondent’s use of the GEICO trademark.
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant argues that the Complainant’s GEICO trademark in respect of insurance services is well known. The Respondent registered the disputed domain dame long after the Complainant registered the GEICO trademarks. Also, the Respondent’s use of the GEICO trademark was to attract Internet users to websites containing phishing threats or comprising pay-per-click (“PPC”) links in order to reap undeserved affiliate commissions.
The disputed domain name currently redirects Internet users to a rotating set of various third-party websites, including to a website with apparent PPC links to insurance products and services.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsAccording to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered marks GEICO since it entirely contains this trademark and only adds the term “quote”.
It has long been established under UDRP decisions that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the mere addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy (see section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)).
Finally, it has also long been held that gTLDs, “.com” in this case, should be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusing similar to a trademark (see section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsPursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant bears the burden of proof in establishing this requirement. In view of the difficulties inherent in “proving a negative” and because the relevant information is mainly in the possession of the Respondent, it is enough for the Complainant to establish a prima facie case which, if not rebutted by sufficient evidence from the Respondent, will lead to this ground being set forth.
Refraining from submitting any Response, the Respondent has brought to the Panel’s attention no circumstances from which the Panel could infer that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel will now examine the Complainant’s arguments regarding the absence of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in connection with the disputed domain name.
The Complainant claims 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 Complainant’s GEICO trademarks in a domain name or in any other manner.
The Respondent did not submit a Response or attempt to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Panel draws adverse inferences from this failure, where appropriate, in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 14(b).
Furthermore, the disputed domain name has been redirected to a number of rotating websites that feature the services of the Complainant’s direct competitors, or PPC links purportedly related to the Complainant’s insurance services, or phishing threat alerts. Such use supports a finding that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithAs stated in the Policy, both conditions, registration and used in bad faith, must be demonstrated; consequently, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent in bad faith as well as the disputed domain name is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
(a) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark GEICO in which the Complainant has rights; the mark GEICO is non-descriptive.
The disputed domain name was registered on April 20, 2005. The Complainant has registered trademark rights in the mark GEICO since 1964 onwards and has been using the mark for decades.
It is more likely than not that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s rights; this is especially supported by the fact that the trademark GEICO is distinctive and the Respondent added the term “quote”.
The Panel is therefore convinced that the disputed domain name was registered with full knowledge of the Complainant’s rights and as such in bad faith by the Respondent.
(b) The disputed domain name resolves to various PPC websites that include links related to the Complainant’s activities in the insurance sector, as well as links to the Complainant’s competitors. On the basis of these facts, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied 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
Daniel Peña
Sole Panelist
Date: December 30, 2021