Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”) v Alexander

WIPO Case No. D2023-1042

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”) v. Alexander
Dantzler

Case No. D2023-1042

1. The Parties

Complainant is Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”), United States of America (“United

States”), represented by Burns & Levinson LLP, United States.

Respondent is Alexander Dantzler, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <geico1hr.com> is registered with Domain.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 8, 2023.
On March 9, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On March 9, 2023, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint.
The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on March 10, 2023 providing the registrant and
contact information disclosed by the Registrar and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the

Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on March 13, 2023.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 17, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 6, 2023. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 12, 2023.

The Center appointed Jeffrey D. Steinhardt as sole panelist in this matter on April 21, 2023.

page 2

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 a well-known insurance business in the United States with millions of customers.
Complainant owns various United States and international trademark registrations for its GEICO mark,
including United States Trademark Registration No. 763,274, registered January 14, 1964 in United States

Class 102, with a first use in commerce date of 1948.

The disputed domain name was registered February 17, 2023 and does not resolve to an active webpage.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges that its GEICO trademark is famous worldwide, that it has over 18 million policies and insures over 30 million vehicles, and that it employs 43,000 people.

Summarizing its legal contentions, Complainant alleges that (1) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and (3) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, all in violation of the Policy. On this basis, Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

The Rules require the Panel to decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted
and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
Rules, paragraph 15(a). Complainant must establish each element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:

(i)        the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;

(ii)       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.

Complainant must establish these elements even if Respondent does not submit a response. See, e.g., The
Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang, WIPO Case No. D2002-1064; WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views
on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3. In the absence of a
Response, the Panel may also accept as true the reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint. See, e.g.,
ThyssenKrupp USA, Inc. v. Richard Giardini, WIPO Case No. D2001-1425 (citing Talk City, Inc. v. Michael
Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).

page 3

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegation that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s GEICO mark.

UDRP panels commonly disregard Top-Level Domains (“TLDs”) in determining whether a disputed domain name is identical or similar to a complainant’s marks. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

Omitting the “.com” TLD from the disputed domain name, the Panel notes that Complainant’s entire GEICO mark is included in the disputed domain name, adding only the number “1” and the term “hr”. The Panel finds that these additions to Complainant’s mark do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7 (where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name will normally be considered by UDRP panels to be confusingly similar).

The Panel therefore concludes that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel also concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Policy contains a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may demonstrate when a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. The list includes: (1) using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services; (2) being commonly known by the domain name; or (3) making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers. Policy, paragraphs 4(c)(i) – (iii).

A complainant must show a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, after which the burden of production passes to the respondent. See, e.g., WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. The absence of rights or legitimate interests is established if a complainant makes out a prima facie case and the respondent enters no Response. Id.

The Panel accepts Complainant’s undisputed allegations that Respondent has no relevant trademark rights and has no authorization or license to use Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name. The Panel also accepts Complainant’s averment that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

Since the record indicates that the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active webpage, the Panel also agrees with Complainant that Respondent is not making a bona fide use of the disputed domain name.

In light of the evidence and allegations of Complainant, the Panel holds that Respondent is not making a noncommercial legitimate or fair use of the disputed domain name and that Complainant has established a prima facie case. Respondent has neither contested nor rebutted that prima facie case.

The Panel holds, therefore, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the second element of Policy, paragraph 4(a) is established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel also finds that the third element of Policy, paragraph 4(a) is established.

Complainant’s GEICO mark is well known and was used in commerce for nearly 80 years before known GEICO trademark by Respondent, who is not affiliated with Complainant, creates a presumption of

Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees with Complainant that, under the

page 4

Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case No.

bad faith. known product that its very use by someone with no connection with the product suggests opportunistic bad faith”); WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

The Panel finds that, under the circumstances, Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name and failure to respond to the Complaint are further evidence of bad faith. E.g., Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.

Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

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 <geico1hr.com> be transferred to Complainant.

/Jeffrey D. Steinhardt/
Jeffrey D. Steinhardt
Sole Panelist
Date: May 5, 2023