The Complainant is Allstate Insurance Company, United States of America (“U.S.”), represented by SILKA AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is 黄国芳 (Huang Guo Fang), China.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 4, 2021. On November 5, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 8, 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 November 8, 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 in English on November 8, 2021.
On November 8, 2021, the Center sent an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding on November 8, 2021. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 15, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 5, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default in English and Chinese on December 6, 2021.
The Center appointed Francine Tan as the sole panelist in this matter on December 13, 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 states that it is an U.S. company which is a pioneer of the insurance industry since its establishment in 1931. The Complainant’s products include auto insurance, homeowners’ insurance, life insurance, and other investment products including retirement planning, annuities and mutual funds. Other lines of products include renters’, condominium, landlord, boat, umbrella, and manufactured-home insurance policies. For the year 2021, the Complainant has been ranked number 70 on the Fortune 500 list of the largest U.S. corporations by total revenue. It was also recognized as one of the “World’s Most Admired Companies” in Fortune 2020 and “Management Top 250” in The Wall Street Journal/Drucker Institute in 2018. The Complainant also has a significant presence on various social media platforms, such as YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn.
The Complainant is the owner of the registered trade mark ALLSTATE in numerous jurisdictions, including the following:
(i) Chinese Trade Mark Registration No. 1631728 for , registered on September 7, 2001;
(ii) U.S. Registration No. 717683 for ALLSTATE, registered on June 27, 1961;
(iii) U.S. Registration No. 761091 for ALLSTATE, registered on December 3, 1963; and
(iv) European Union Trade Mark No. 000040527 for ALLSTATE, registered on February 12, 1998.
The Complainant also owns the domain name
The disputed domain name was registered on June 29, 2020. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking site with pay-per-click (“PPC”) links referring to insurance services.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALLSTATE trade mark in which it has rights. The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s ALLSTATE trade mark with the addition of a generic term “myaccount” and the letters “rwd”. These additions do not remove the confusing similarity with the Complainant’s ALLSTATE trade mark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use the ALLSTATE trade mark in association with a domain name registration. To the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has it acquired any trade mark rights in the term “myaccountrwdallstate”. The disputed domain name has not been used in connection with any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, without intent for commercial gain. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking site with PPC links referring to insurance services, e.g.: “Auto Insurance”, “Motorcycle Insurance”, and “Renters Insurance”. The disputed domain name is almost identical to the Complainant’s sub-domain
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent would have been well aware of the Complainant’s ALLSTATE trade mark at the time the disputed domain name was registered. The Complainant’s trade mark registrations for ALLSTATE, including in China where the Complainant is apparently located, long predate the registration date of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the disputed domain name is almost identical to the sub-domain. The PPC links relate to insurance services, which is an activity the Complainant is well known for. The Respondent must have chosen the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s ALLSTATE mark and activities in mind. The evidence also suggests a risk that the Respondent may have the intention to use the disputed domain name to send fraudulent or phishing emails.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issue: Language of the ProceedingParagraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that “[u]nless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.”
The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for the following reasons:
(i) The disputed domain name comprises letters issued from the Latin alphabet including the English words “my” and “account”;
(ii) The webpage to which the disputed domain name resolves contains PPC links in the English language;
(iii) The Complainant is located in the U.S. and its representative is located in Sweden. Both parties do not have knowledge of the Chinese language.
(iv) Requiring the Complainant to translate the Complaint into Chinese would cause the Complainant to incur substantial costs and cause an undue delay in the proceeding.
The Respondent did not respond on issue of the language of the proceeding.
The Panel determines that it is appropriate for English to apply as the language of the proceeding. The Panel is persuaded that the Respondent is sufficiently familiar with, and has an understanding of the English language. Bearing in mind the need to ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place expeditiously and in a cost-effective manner, the Panel does not find it procedurally efficient to have the Complainant translate the Complaint and evidence into Chinese. The Panel is of the view that the Respondent is not prejudiced by this determination since the Center’s communications with the Parties relating to the filing of the Complaint and the language of the proceeding were sent in both English and Chinese. The Respondent had the opportunity to object but did not.
6.2 Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant has established it has rights in the ALLSTATE trade mark. The ALLSTATE trade mark is reproduced in its entirety in the disputed domain name and is recognizable therein. The Panel agrees that the addition of the term “myaccount” and letters “rwd” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s ALLSTATE trade mark. (See sections 1.7 and 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition.)
The Panel accordingly finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s use and registrations of the ALLSTATE trade mark long predate the registration date of the disputed domain name. The Complainant did not license or authorize the Respondent to use the ALLSTATE trade mark in any way. Neither is there evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the name “myaccountrwdallstate”. The use of the disputed domain name which incorporates the Complainant’s well-established ALLSTATE trade mark for a parking page with PPC links offering competing services does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The Complainant’s prima facie case has been established and unrebutted by the Respondent. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It is not at all plausible that the Respondent, by pure coincidence and without prior knowledge of the Complainant and its ALLSTATE mark, selected the disputed domain name. The Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, with the intention to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the parking page, to unfairly take advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill by profiting from the confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark. The Complainant is well known in the insurance industry and the fact that the disputed domain name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s sub-domain, which it uses for its business, is a strong indicator of bad faith registration and use. The Panel is persuaded that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant and its ALLSTATE trade mark and specifically targeted them when it registered the disputed domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied.
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
Francine Tan
Sole Panelist
Date: December 21, 2021