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. Cyber Domain Services Pvt. Ltd

Case No. D2011-0258

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Allstate Insurance Company of Northbrook, Illinois, United States of America, represented by Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, PC, United States of America.

The Respondent is Cyber Domain Services Pvt. Ltd. of Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

2. The Domain Names and Registrars

The disputed domain name, <allstatre.com> (the “First Domain Name”), is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and the disputed domain name, <encompassinsrance.com> (the “Second Domain Name”), is registered with Tirupati Domains and Hosting Pvt Ltd. The two registrars are hereinafter together referred to as “the Registrars”.

3. Procedural History

The original Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 7, 2011. It was one of a number of complaints filed by the Complainant in February 2011, all directed against PrivacyProtect.org, which was then the entity recorded on the relevant Registrars’ databases as being the registrant of the domain names the subject of those complaints.

The original Complaint related solely to the First Domain Name, but following receipt of the various Registrar verifications sought in this proceeding and in the other proceedings, it came to the Center’s attention that both the First Domain Name and the Second Domain Name, which had been the subject of one of the other complaints, were held in the name of the Respondent.

The Registrars confirmed this to be the case by emails to the Center from Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com dated February 11, 2011 in respect of the First Domain Name and from Tirupati Domains and Hosting Pvt Ltd dated February 21, 2011 in respect of the Second Domain Name. In those emails to the Center the Registrars disclosed the registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names.

The Center provided to the Complainant the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrars, and on February 23, 2011 the Complainant sought and obtained the Center’s consent variously to consolidate, separate and/or withdraw certain of the proceedings to reflect the new information provided by the Registrars. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 23, 2011.

The Center verified that the amended Complaint (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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 2, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 22, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 23, 2011.

The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on March 31, 2011. 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.

While PrivacyProtect.org was properly identified as the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain names, it seems clear that it was a privacy service employed by the Respondent and that the Respondent has been the underlying registrant throughout. In these circumstances, for the purpose of this proceeding, the Panel treats the Respondent as having been the sole registrant of the disputed domain names.

4. Factual Background

The unchallenged evidence of the Complainant is that it is a very well-known insurance company, which has operated throughout the United States of America under the name Allstate since its founding in 1931.

The Complainant is the registered proprietor of numerous United States trade mark registrations of or including ALLSTATE, one of which is United States registration number 717,683 dated June 27, 1961 with a claimed first use in 1957 ALLSTATE in class 36 for various underwriting services.

Since about 2000 the Complainant has traded under the name Encompass through a number of affiliated companies all of which feature the name Encompass in their corporate names. The unchallenged evidence of the Complainant is that those companies sell insurance throughout the United States via in excess of over 3,300 insurance agents.

The Complainant is the registered proprietor of numerous United States trade mark registrations of or including the name Encompass, one of which is United States registration number 2,837,616 dated May 4, 2004 for a word and design mark ENCOMPASS INSURANCE in international class 36 for insurance underwriting services in the fields of liability and property insurance.

The First Domain Name was registered on May 8, 2005. The Second Domain Name was registered on September 24, 2005. The disputed domain names are each connected to pay-per-click parking pages featuring advertising links to insurance service providers and their products.

On December 10, 2010 the Complainant wrote to the Respondent’s privacy service, which was then identified as the registrant. The Complainant drew attention to its rights and inter alia demanded transfer of the disputed domain names. Neither the privacy service nor the Respondent replied.

The Respondent has been the subject of several previous complaints under the Policy and has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

It will be noted that this decision and the decisions in Allstate Insurance Company v. Rakshita Mercantile Private Limited, WIPO Case No. D2011-0280 and Allstate Insurance Company v. Bolama Technologies Limited, Mr Bolama, WIPO Case No. D2011-0307 are in similar form to the decision in, Allstate Insurance Company v. Web Master Internet Services Private Limited, WIPO Case No. D2011-0308. As will be seen from the Procedural Background (Section 3 above), these cases arise in very similar circumstances and the complaints are in very similar form.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. General

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain names, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

(i) The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and

(iii) The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

In assessing identity and confusing similarity for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic domain suffix. Absent the domain suffix the First Domain Name comprises the Complainant’s ALLSTATE trade mark with the addition of the letter “r” as the penultimate letter. The Second Domain Name is substantially identical to the Complainant’s ENCOMPASS INSURANCE trade mark, but with the letter “u” omitted.

The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant’s primary contention is that the Respondent intentionally selected the disputed domain names for one reason only, namely the fact that they so closely replicated the Complainant’s well-known trade marks and with a view to attracting Internet users to the Respondent’s websites for the commercial gain offered by the pay-per-click advertising links to be found there.

The Complainant recites the examples of what shall constitute rights or legitimate interests for this purpose as set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy and contends that none of them is applicable. The Complainant asserts that it has never given the Respondent any permission to use its trade marks or any variants thereof.

In the view of the Panel the Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case. It is difficult to believe that anyone could have come up with the Second Domain Name without having the Complainant firmly in mind and the nature of the insurance-related advertising links to be found on both websites underlines the significance of the Complainant’s trade marks in the field of insurance. The fact that the disputed domain names are meaningless in themselves save as mis-spellings of the Complainant’s trade marks adds to the suspicion surrounding the Respondent’s motives. At the very least, the Respondent has a case to answer.

In the absence of any response the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

By the same reasoning and in the absence of any explanation from the Respondent the Panel finds that the Respondent selected the disputed domain names with a view to earning pay-per-click revenue from visitors to its websites, those visitors having been attracted to the Respondent’s websites by the potential for deception inherent in the disputed domain names, namely their confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trade marks.

On the evidence before it, none of which has been challenged by the Respondent, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the First Domain Name, <allstatre.com>, and the Second Domain Name, <encompassinsrance.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Dated: April 1, 2011

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/en/web/podcasts/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/