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

Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”) v. Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd

Case No. D2021-3148

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”), United States of America (“United States”), represented by Burns & Levinson LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <geicogeico.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Above.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 23, 2021. On September 24, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 27, 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 September 29, 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 October 4, 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 October 7, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 27, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 28, 2021.

The Center appointed Michelle Brownlee as the sole panelist in this matter on November 12, 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 owns registrations for the trademark GEICO in connection with insurance services, including United States Registration Numbers 763,274 and 2,601,979, registered on January 14, 1964 and July 30, 2002 respectively, and International Registration Number 1178718, registered on September 4, 2013.

The Domain Name was registered on July 1, 2015 and resolves to a parked page comprising pay-per-click links related to the Complainant or its business.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that it is an internationally well-known insurance provider which has provided its insurance services throughout the United States under the trademark GEICO since at least as early as 1948. The Complaint states that its services include insurance brokerage and underwriting for automobiles, motorcycles, homeowners, renters, condominiums, mobile homes, commercial properties, overseas travel, floods and boats. The Complainant states that it has over 17 million policies, insures more than 28 million vehicles, has more than 40,000 employees, and is one of the fastest-growing auto insurers in the United States. The Complainant states that it promotes its GEICO trademark extensively via its website at “www.geico.com” and various social media platforms.

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GEICO trademark, that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant has presented evidence that the Domain Name resolves to a parked page that contains links labeled “Auto Insurance Geico,” “Home Owners Insurances,” “Geico Commercial Insurance” and other links related to the Complainant or its business. The Complainant states that these links direct Internet users to third party web sites, including some operated by competitors of the Complainant. The web site that the Domain Name resolves to also includes a link at the top of the page that says “The domain geicogeico.com may be for sale. Click here to inquire about this domain.” The Complainant has presented evidence that, at the time the original Complaint was filed, this link resolved to a web site that offered the Domain Name for sale for USD 250, which the Complainant argued is in excess of out-of-pocket expenses directly related to the Domain Name. At the time the Complainant filed the amended complaint, the content of the web site at the link had changed to state that the Domain Name was not for sale. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to “reap undeserved pay-per-click fees” and unfairly profit from the Complainant’s reputation. The Complainant also argues that the fact that the Respondent did not respond to a cease and desist letter that the Complainant sent is further evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith. The Complainant also presented evidence that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration by citing other decisions under the Policy involving the Respondent in which panels determined that the Respondent had engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove the following three elements:

(1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(2) the respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns rights in the GEICO trademark. The GEICO trademark is clearly recognizable in the Domain Name. The repetition of the GEICO trademark twice in the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s GEICO trademark. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GEICO trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that a respondent can demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name by demonstrating one of the following facts:

(i) before receiving any notice of the dispute, the respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name at issue in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name; or

(iii) the respondent is 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 at issue.

In this case, the Complainant has put forward a prima facie case and no evidence has been presented that the Respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name, or that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. The Complainant has alleged that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to direct Internet users to a parked page that generates pay-per-click revenue and has offered the Domain Name for sale for USD 250. The Respondent has not refuted these allegations. In the Panel’s view, this cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that the following circumstances are evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

“(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name at issue 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 documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) the respondent 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, Internet users to its web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site or location or of a product or service on its web site or location.”

The Complainant has established bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Domain Name is being used to direct Internet users to a parked page by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The parked page appears to generate pay-per-click revenue, which demonstrates that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s GEICO trademark. Further, the Complainant has also established bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, because the Complainant presented evidence that the Respondent has offered the Domain Name for sale for valuable consideration presumably in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs, and the content on the Respondent’s web site demonstrates that the Respondent likely acquired the Domain Name for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant. The Complainant has also established bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(ii). The Complainant established that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration of domain names that incorporate well known trademarks. See Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Transure Enterprise Ltd. WIPO Case No. D2017-2392 (Respondent engaged in “massive pattern of cyber piracy”); Government Employees Insurance Company v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Transure Enterprise Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2018-1698; LEGO Juris A/S v. Transure Enterprise Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2009-1347.

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 Domain Name <geicogeico.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Michelle Brownlee
Sole Panelist
Date: November 26, 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/