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. MARK RAVA

Case No. DME2021-0016

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is MARK RAVA, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <geicoinsurance.me> (the “Disputed 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 November 2, 2021. On November 3, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On November 4, 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 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 amendment to the Complaint on November 30, 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 December 1, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 21, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 28, 2021.

The Center appointed Angela Fox as the sole panelist in this matter on January 10, 2022. 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 a well-known insurance provider who 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 a number of U.S. federal trademark registrations for its trademark GEICO, including U.S. registration no. 0763274, dated January 14, 1964, and U.S. registration no. 2601179, dated July 30, 2002, as well as European Union Trade Mark registration no. 1178718, dated September 4, 2013, and International Registration no. 1178718, dated September 4, 2013. Details of these registrations were annexed to the Complaint.

The Complainant has over 17 million policies and insures more than 28 million vehicles. It has over 40,000 employees, and is one of the fastest-growing auto insurers in the U.S. The Complainant maintains various social media accounts under the GEICO trademark, including on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and LinkedIn, each of which garner tens of thousands, and in some cases millions, of followers. Screenshots of the Complainant’s social media accounts were annexed to the Complaint. The Complainant maintains a website at “www.geico.com”, which it uses to promote and sell its insurance services under its GEICO trademark. Screenshots from the Complainant’s website were annexed to the Complaint.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on February 6, 2012. It currently re-directs to a website at “www.vustrum.com”, which features listings for personal electronic products, purportedly from various third parties such as Apple and HP. A print-out of this website was annexed to the Complaint.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its registered GEICO trademark. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the distinctive GEICO trademark and the descriptive term “insurance” and the non-distinctive country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.me” do not avoid a finding of confusing similarity.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the GEICO trademark in a domain name or in any other manner. Moreover, there is no evidence of use by the Respondent, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name in relation to a bona fide offering of goods or services, or that the Respondent is making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.

Finally, the Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and has been used in bad faith. The Complainant submits that the GEICO trademark is so well known in respect of insurance services that it is implausible that the Respondent was not aware of it when the Disputed Domain Name was registered. The Complainant argues that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name and use of it to redirect visitors to a website unrelated to the Complainant, can be for no other purpose than to improperly increase traffic to the website at the Disputed Domain Name for the Respondent’s commercial gain by syphoning off the Complainant’s goodwill and reputation. The Complainant avers that there is no conceivable contemplated use of the Disputed Domain Name that would not be an infringing use by the Respondent.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is in default. No exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward. Therefore, in accordance with paragraphs 14(a) and (b) of the Rules, the Panel will decide the Complaint and shall draw such inferences, as it considers appropriate from the Respondent’s default.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the panel finds that:

(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

All three elements must be present before a complainant can succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has proved that it has registered trademark rights in GEICO and that this mark is well known in the field of insurance services in the United States. The Disputed Domain Name consists of the mark GEICO and the non-distinctive word “insurance”. The presence of the additional word does nothing to avoid confusing similarity with the Complainant’s GEICO trademark. The ccTLD “.me” does not prevent confusing similarity and is typically disregarded for purposes of the first element. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The burden of proving the absence of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name falls on complainants, but panels have long recognised that the information needed to prove such rights or legitimate interests is normally in the possession of respondents.

In order to avoid requiring complainants to prove a negative, which will often be impossible, UDRP panels have typically accepted that once a complainant has established a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the respondent carries the burden of showing that it does indeed have such rights or interests (see, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1). In the present case, the Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the Respondent might have such rights or legitimate interests, nor has the Respondent attempted to make one out. The Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use the Disputed Domain Name, nor is there any evidence that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by it.

The Respondent has been using the Disputed Domain Name to re-direct to a website at “www.vustrum.com”, which holds itself out as offering an eclectic mix of third-party products under categories such as “Desktops, Laptops & Notebooks, Ladies Trousers, Tablets, Software, Phones and PDAs, Ladies Suits, and MP3 Players”. Some of these categories bear no relationship to the items they purport to contain within them; when hovering over “Ladies Trousers”, for example, the dropdown list which is displayed lists the following items, “Mice and Trackballs, Monitors, Printers, Scanners, and Web Cameras”. The home page displays a range of “featured” products including a MacBook, iPhone and a Canon EOS 5D camera, and depicts a number of third party logos that do not appear to have any link to the products purportedly being offered, such as the well-known RED BULL energy drink logo, the COCA-COLA Logo and the logo for the fast-food chain BURGER KING. Although the website depicts prices against the items shown on the home page, the About Us page is strangely empty, along with most of the other pages on the site.

The Complainant submits that there is no evidence that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Having reviewed the annexed screenshots and the website to which the Disputed Domain Name links, the Panel agrees. The website mostly consists of blank pages, and does not contain even the most basic of information needed to give a visitor confidence that he or she is dealing with a legitimate entity. The Panel considers it more likely than not that the website to which the Disputed Domain Name links is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, both because there is real doubt that it is offering any goods or services at all, and because the purported offer of them through the website appears not to be bona fide.

Moreover, given that the Disputed Domain Name includes both the Complainant’s well-known trademark GEICO, and the word “insurance”, which describes the Complainant’s activities under that mark, it is implausible that the Respondent did not register the Disputed Domain Name in the knowledge of the Complainant and its business. Moreover, the nature of the Disputed Domain Name is such as to carry a risk of implied affiliation to the Complainant, which cannot constitute fair use. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. It is difficult to imagine how the Respondent could argue that its use of the Disputed Domain Name could give rise to rights or legitimate interests in it. Notably, the Respondent did not attempt to do so.

The Respondent has made no effort to refute the Complainant’s assertion that the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor that the Respondent has no rights or interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, the Panel may find both registration and use in bad faith where there is evidence that by using the domain name, a respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a 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 it.

In this case, the Respondent has adopted the Disputed Domain Name, which incorporates the Complainant’s well-known trademark and is confusingly similar to it, and has used it to re-direct to a website purportedly offering a variety of products for sale. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates a well-known trademark which the Complainant has shown enjoys a high level of recognition, and which is therefore inherently likely to attract Internet traffic. It is clear from these facts that in using the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant. Such conduct is inherently misleading and in the Panel’s view is evidence of registration and use in bad faith.

Moreover, the Complainant has proved that its GEICO trademark is well known in respect of insurance services in the United States, where the Respondent is based. It is implausible that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant and its GEICO trademark for insurance services when the Disputed Domain Name was registered. Given that the Disputed Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s distinctive trademark GEICO and the word “insurance”, which identifies the services for which the GEICO trademark is well known, it is difficult to conceive of any good faith use to which the Disputed Domain Name could be put in the hands of the Respondent.

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and has been 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, <geicoinsurance.me> be transferred to the Complainant.

Angela Fox
Sole Panelist
Date: February 7, 2022

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/