Government Employees Insurance Company v Fouzya Ourrat
WIPO Case No. D2023-3097
•19-10-2023
ARBITRATION
AND
| MEDIATION CENTER |
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Government Employees Insurance Company v. Fouzya Ourrat
Case No. D2023-3097
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Government Employees Insurance Company, represented by Burns & Levinson LLP,
United States of America (the “United States”).
The Respondent is Fouzya Ourrat, Morocco.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <geicox.info> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 18, 2023.
On July 19, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, 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, PRIVACY SERVICE PROVIDED
BY WITHHELD FOR PRIVACY EHF) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email
communication to the Complainant on July 25, 2023 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 July 26, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 10, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 30, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 14, 2023.
The Center appointed Cherise Valles as the sole panelist in this matter on October 5, 2023. 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.
page 2
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is an internationally well-known insurance provider that has provided insurance services – including insurance brokerage and underwriting for automobiles, motorcycles, homeowners, renters, condominiums, mobile homes, commercial properties, overseas travel, floods, and boats – throughout the United States under the mark “GEICO” since at least 1948.
The Complainant holds United States Federal trademark registrations for its trademark “GEICO”, including the following trademarks registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office:
Registration No. 763274, registered on January 14, 1964
Registration No. 2601179, registered on July 30, 2002
The Complainant also has trademarks registered with the European Union Intellectual Property Office, activities, the trademark GEICO has become uniquely associated with the Complainant and its services. The Complainant has over 18 million policies and insures more than 30 million vehicles. The Complainant also has over 43,000 employees, and is one of the fastest-growing auto insurers in the United States.
e.g., registration No. 1178718, registered on September 4, 2013, and an international registration,
The Complainant maintains various social media accounts under its GEICO mark, including Facebook, sell its insurance services under its GEICO trademark. The “ website enables computer users to access information regarding the Complainant’s insurance services, manage their policies and claims, learn more about the Complainant, and obtain insurance quotes.
Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and LinkedIn, each of which has tens of thousands, and in some cases
millions, of followers (See Annex 5). In connection with its insurance products and services, the
The disputed domain name was registered on November 3, 2022. The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s GEICO trademark along with the letter “x” and the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.info”. At the time of the decision, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website (Annex 7 to the
Complaint).
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant asserts that each of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and the corresponding provisions in the Rules have been satisfied. In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered GEICO trademark, in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark.
The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant states that the Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has never licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademarks or to register any domain name that included its trademarks.
The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
page 3
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. by an entity that has no relationship to that mark is itself evidence of bad faith registration and use. Furthermore, the Respondent’s impersonating and/or competing uses of the disputed domain name is clear evidence of bad faith.
The Complainant requests the Panel to issue a decision finding that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
In terms of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for a Complaint to succeed, the Complainant must prove each of the following elements:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(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.
The Respondent has failed to file a Response in this proceeding. The Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have relevant rights in a trademark and the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
Given the Complainant’s trademark registration as detailed above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has has rights. The disputed domain name incorporates the GEICO trademark in its entirety with the addition of the letter “x” at the end.
established its trademark rights in the term “GEICO” for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
As stated in section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), “[…] in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing”.
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to such mark.
It is standard practice when comparing a disputed domain name to a complainant’s trademark not to take the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) into account. See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, which states that the “applicable [TLD] in a domain name (e.g., ‘.com’, ‘.club’, ‘.nyc’) is viewed as a standard registration
requirement and, as such, is disregarded under the first element of the confusing similarity test”. In the
present case, the TLD “info” is disregarded under the first element of the confusing similarity test.
In the light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
page 4
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out a non-exhaustive set of circumstances, any of which, if found by the rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, namely:
“[a]ny of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the panel to be proved
based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the
domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain
name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or
services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain
name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for
commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
The Respondent did not submit a Response or attempt to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, whether on the basis of the non-exhaustive examples set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or on any other basis, and the Panel draws inferences from this failure, where appropriate, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
| under the second element of the Policy, not rebutted by the respondent, that the respondent has no rights or | It is recognised in cases under the Policy that it is sufficient for a complainant to make a prima facie case legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or on any other basis, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. |
| The Complainant states that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its GEICO trademark in any form. the disputed domain name currently resolves to an inactive website. | |
| On the evidence before the Panel, there has never been any relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. The Respondent is not licensed, or otherwise authorized, be it directly or indirectly, to register or use the Complainant’s GEICO trademark in any manner, including in, or as part of, the disputed domain | |
| name. | |
| In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and concludes that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied. | |
| C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith | |
| that it was being used in bad faith. The term “bad faith” is “broadly understood to occur where a respondent | |
| For this element, the Complainant is required to prove that the disputed domain name was registered and which, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith, namely: |
page 5
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the
purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is
the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration
in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service
mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged
in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a
competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
Previous UDRP panels have found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or
confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typographical errors or incorporating the mark plus
a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a
presumption of bad faith. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No.
D2000-0003; CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen, WIPO Case No. D2000-0400.
Furthermore, the nature of the disputed domain name, consisting of the Complainant’s famous trademark with the addition of the letter “x”, carries a risk of implied affiliation and cannot constitute fair use as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
The Respondent has not participated in the administrative proceeding and has not answered the Complainant’s contentions. The fact that the Respondent has decided not to provide any legitimate explanation or to assert any alleged good faith motivation in respect of the registration or use of the disputed domain name in the face of the Complainant’s contentions can be regarded as an indicator of registration and use in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of showing bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
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 <geicox.info> be transferred to the Complainant.
/Cherise Valles/
Cherise Valles
Sole Panelist
Date: October 19, 2023
0
0
0