American Airlines, Inc. v. Nexpert, Inc c/o Jeff Park
Claim Number: FA0710001089359
Complainant is American Airlines, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kristin
Jordan Harkins, of Conley Rose, P.C.,
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <aavactions.com>, registered with eNom.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 4, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 9, 2007.
On October 5, 2007, eNom confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <aavactions.com> domain name is registered with eNom and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On October 16, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 5, 2007 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@aavactions.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 9, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <aavactions.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <aavactions.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <aavactions.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, American Airlines, Inc., has continuously used the AA mark since as early as December 1935 in connection with airline transportation services and vacation services. Complainant currently holds a registration of the AA mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 514,292 issued August 23, 1949). Further, Complainant has operated a website at the <aavacations.com> domain name to promote and advertise Complainant’s services since at least as early as October 1997. This website is viewed by over 6.9 million Internet users each year and has provided over $235 million in annual sales under the AA mark.
Respondent’s <aavactions.com> domain name was registered on May 20, 2007 and currently resolves to a links-driven web page, featuring hyperlinks that redirect Internet users to various commercial websites offering travel and vacation planning services.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), Complainant has established rights
in the AA mark through registration with the USPTO. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration
of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the
mark.”); see also U.S. Office of Pers.
Mgmt. v. MS Tech. Inc., FA 198898 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 9, 2003) (“[O]nce
the USPTO has made a determination that a mark is registrable, by so issuing a
registration, as indeed was the case here, an ICANN panel is not empowered to
nor should it disturb that determination.”).
Respondent’s <aavactions.com> domain name contains Complainant’s AA mark in its entirety and then includes both the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” and a common misspelling of the generic term “vacations,” which has an obvious connection to Complainant’s business as Complainant has been operating a website by the same name since as early as 1997. Respondent’s disputed domain name misspells “vacation” by omitting the second “a.” It is well-established that the inclusion of a gTLD is not relevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. Further, a simple misspelling will not distinguish a disputed domain name, especially when that misspelled term has an obvious relationship to a complainant’s business. Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <aavactions.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AA mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Powerclick, Inc., D2000-1259 (WIPO Dec. 1, 2000) (holding that the deliberate introduction of errors or changes, such as the addition of a fourth “w” or the omission of periods or other such “generic” typos do not change respondent’s infringement on a core trademark held by the complainant); see also Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business).
The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must establish a prima facie case that Respondent has no
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See
VeriSign Inc. v. VeneSign
No Response has been submitted to the Complaint. The Panel thus presumes that Respondent has
no rights or legitimate interests in the <aavactions.com> domain name, but,
taking account of the factors under Policy ¶ 4(c), the Panel will still
consider all of the available evidence. See G.D.
Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002)
(“Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any
circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the
subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29,
2000) (“Given Respondent’s failure to submit a substantive answer in a timely
fashion, the Panel accepts as true all of the allegations of the complaint.”).
Nowhere in Respondent’s WHOIS information does it indicate
that Respondent is or ever was commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, there is no evidence that indicates
that Respondent sought or received permission from Complainant to use the AA
mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel
finds that absent any evidence to the contrary, Respondent is not commonly
known by the <aavactions.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Cimock, FA 126829 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 13, 2003) (“Due to the fame of
Complainant’s mark there must be strong evidence that Respondent is commonly
known by the disputed domain name in order to find that Respondent has rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). However, there is no evidence
on record, and Respondent has not come forward with any proof to establish that
it is commonly known as CELEBREXRX or <celebrexrx.com>.”); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v.
Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or
legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and
never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the
trademarked name).
Respondent’s <aavactions.com> domain name contains
Complainant’s mark in its entirety and resolves to a website featuring various
links to the websites of third-parties offering services in competition with
those offered under Complainant’s AA mark.
The Panel finds this to be neither a bona
fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See
eBay Inc. v. Hong, D2000-1633 (WIPO Jan. 18, 2001) (stating that the
respondent’s use of the complainant’s entire mark in domain names makes it
difficult to infer a legitimate use); see
also Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan.
11, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to
redirect Internet users to a financial services website, which competed with
the complainant, was not a bona fide
offering of goods or services); see also
TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards,
FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s
diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website
which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s
competitors, was not a bona fide
offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The <aavactions.com> domain name resolves
to a links-driven web page featuring various links to the websites of
third-parties offering services in competition with those offered under
Complainant’s AA mark. The Panel finds
this attempt to disrupt Complainant’s business establishes Respondent’s bad
faith registration and use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iii). See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent
registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert
Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that
Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create
confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶
4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”); see also S. Exposure v.
S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the
respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that
competes with the complainant’s business).
Moreover, Respondent is assumed to be commercially benefiting
from the disputed domain name through referrals fees received for each Internet
user who clicks on one of Respondent’s links and is redirected to one of the
competing third-parties’ websites. The
Panel finds this commercial benefit derived from a confusingly similar disputed
domain name to be further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and
use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Associated
Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA
201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the
<mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's
competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the
misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”); see also Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding
that if the respondent profits from its diversionary use of the complainant's
mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails
to contest the complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the
domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <aavactions.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: November 20, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum