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. Angela Barlow

Case No. D2020-0841

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 Angela Barlow, United States.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <geicoauto.live>, <geico-ins.site> (the “Disputed Domain Names”) are registered with Name.com, Inc. (Name.com LLC) (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 6, 2020. On April 7, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On April 7, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that 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 April 16, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 6, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 8, 2020.

The Center appointed Martin Schwimmer as the sole panelist in this matter on May 21, 2020. 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 company that has used the GEICO trademark for various insurance services since at least 1948.

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names in December of 2019. The Disputed Domain Names redirect to the Complainant’s website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant is a well-known insurance company that has provided insurance services since 1936. The Complainant offers numerous types of insurance services including automobile, motorcycle, homeowners, rental, condominium, flood, mobile home, personal umbrella, and overseas insurance, among others.

The Complainant owns numerous registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its GEICO service mark (e.g.: Registration No. 763274; issued January 14, 1964; and Registration No. 2601179; issued July 30, 2002).

The Complainant has made extensive use of its distinctive GEICO mark in connection with its services. The company invests large sums to promote and develop the GEICO mark through television, print media and the Internet. As a result of such efforts, the GEICO mark is a powerful, recognizable symbol of the Complainant’s goodwill and excellent reputation.

Through extensive use and promotional activities using the GEICO mark, it has become uniquely associated with the Complainant and its services. In fact, the Complainant has over 17 million policies and insures more than 28 million vehicles. The Complainant also has over 40,000 employees, and is one of the fastest-growing auto insurers in the United States.

The Disputed Domain Names fully incorporates the mark, adding only the descriptive term “auto” – a common abbreviation for “automobile”, or a hyphen along with the letters “ins” – a common abbreviation for “insurance” along with a Top-Level Domain (“TLD”).

The Disputed Domain Names redirect to the Complainant’s website.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has received no license or consent, express or implied, to use the GEICO mark in any manner. Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names.

After becoming aware of the Disputed Domain Names, counsel for the Complainant contacted the Respondent to request that the Respondent cease its infringing use of the GEICO mark and transfer the Disputed Domain Names to the Complainant. The Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s demand that the Respondent transfer the Disputed Domain Names to the Complainant.

The Respondent’s misappropriation of the GEICO mark in the Disputed Domain Names was no accident. Where a mark is famous, as in the instant case, it is “not one traders would legitimately choose unless seeking to create an impression of an association” with the Complainant. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.

The fact that the Disputed Domain Names redirected to the Complainant’s own website does not absolve the Respondent from a finding of bad faith registration, but rather is demonstrative that the Respondent specifically targeted the Complainant and the Complainant’s GEICO mark, evidencing the Respondent’s bad faith use and registration.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of rights in the trademark GEICO including by registration at the USPTO and through use in commerce, notably at its website at “www.geico.com”.

The Panel determines that the Complainant owns rights in the trademark GEICO.

Furthermore, the Panel takes notice that previous panels have held that the Complainant’s GEICO trademark is well known in the United States.

The Disputed Domain Name, <geico-ins.site>, merely adds the three-letter term “ins” as well as the TLD “.site” to the Complainant’s GEICO mark. The Panel notes that “ins” serves as a common abbreviation for the word “insurance”, which describes exactly the primary business of the Complainant. Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name <geicoauto.live>, merely adds the word “auto” as well as the TLD “.live” to the Complainant’s mark. The Panel notes that “auto” describes one of the forms of insurance for which the Complainant is known. The Complainant’s mark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Names and the added terms do not prevent a finding of confusingly similar to that mark in the Panel’s opinion. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

The Panel finds that the Complainant has demonstrated that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Disputed Domain Names redirect to the Complainant’s website.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has received no license or consent, express or implied, to use the GEICO mark in any manner. Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondent has not replied to the Complaint and has not attempted to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie showing of lack of rights or legitimate interests.

The Respondent’s redirection of the Disputed Domain Names to the Complainant’s website does not establish rights or legitimate interests in favor of the Respondent.

The Panel determines that the Complainant has established that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent’s registration of two domain names that consist of the Complainant’s well-known GEICO trademark followed by two different descriptors of the Complainant’s businesses is dispositive evidence of the Respondent’s prior actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the trademark.

That the Disputed Domain Names redirect to the Complainant’s own website demonstrates that the Respondent specifically targeted the Complainant and the Complainant’s GEICO mark, and evidences Respondent’s bad faith registration and use. See Accenture Global Services Limited v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Tu Do, Nguyen Thi Ha Linh, WIPO Case No. D2020-0164 (finding evidence of bad faith in respondent’s redirection of Internet traffic to complainant’s website via a domain name incorporating complainant’s registered trademark); Facebook, Inc. v. Domain Admin, Whoisprotection.cc / Tony FBT, WIPO Case No. D2019-1672 (finding evidence of bad faith may be established when the respondent “retains control over the redirection thus creating a real or implied ongoing threat to the Complainant.”)

Based on the circumstances of this case, the mere passive holding of the Disputed Domain Names reflecting the Complainant’s well-known mark constitutes bad faith. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, supra.

The Panel also takes notice of the fact that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names with a false street address.

In conclusion, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being 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 Names <geicoauto.live> and <geico-ins.site> be transferred to the Complainant.

Martin Schwimmer
Sole Panelist
Date: June 8, 2020

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/