About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Allstate Insurance Company v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Juan Carlos Ramirez Sanchez

Case No. D2021-0033

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Allstate Insurance Company, United States of America (“USA”), represented by SILKA AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, USA / Juan Carlos Ramirez Sanchez, Mexico.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

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

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 6, 2021. On January 7, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On January 8, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 11, 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 January 13, 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 January 20, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 9, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 19, 2021.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on March 8, 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 Background

The Complainant is the owner of the mark ALLSTATE, registered, inter alia, in the USA as trade mark registration number 0717683 for insurance services on June 27, 1961.

The Domain Name, registered on November 10, 2020, has been used for a competing commercial services web site using the Complainant’s logo and its Chicago address without permission which appears falsely to be an official web site of the Complainant. The Domain Name has also been used for an e-mail address in a document which appears to have been created for the purposes of phishing.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark ALLSTATE, registered, inter alia, in the USA for insurance services since 1961.

The Domain Name, registered in 2020, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALLSTATE mark, wholly incorporating it and adding only the dictionary words “international” and “investments” and the generic Top--Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, none of which prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

The Domain Name has been used for a site purporting to be an official site of the Complainant falsely using the Complainant’s logo and its Chicago address.

The Domain Name has also been used in an e-mail address in a document which appears to be part of a phishing scam.

The Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith. The Respondent registered the Domain Name to direct it to a site that mimicked an official site of the Complainant and used the Complainant’s logo and the Complainant’s Chicago address to confuse Internet users into believing the web site and services offered on it are associated with the Complainant for commercial gain. The mimicking and impersonation of the Complainant shows the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its business.

Phishing is registration and use in bad faith.

The Respondent has used a privacy service for registration of the Domain Name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s ALLSTATE mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the USA for insurance services since 1961), the dictionary words “international” and “investments”, and the gTLD “.com”.

Previous UDRP panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds dictionary words and a gTLD to a Complainant’s mark. The Panel agrees that the addition of the dictionary words “international” and “investments” and the gTLD “.com” to the Complainant’s mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s ALLSTATE trade mark pursuant to the Policy.

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALLSTATE registered mark.

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its ALLSTATE mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name.

The Domain Name has been used for a commercial web site purporting to be an official site of the Complainant, falsely using the Complainant’s logo and the Complainant’s address in Chicago. The Panel finds this use is deceptive. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

Further, the Domain Name has been used for an e-mail address in a document that appears to be created for a phishing attempt which also cannot be a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

The Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, which has not been rebutted by the Respondent.

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In the opinion of the Panel the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it uses the Complainant’s logo and Chicago address for a competing commercial site without permission.

The use of the Complainant’s logo and its address in Chicago shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its rights, business, and services.

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and services on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant.

Further, the Domain Name has been used in an apparent phishing attempt which is also evidence of bad faith registration and use.

As such, the Panel believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used 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 <allstateinternationalinvestments.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: March 17, 2021

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/