Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Capeka Hoffmann
Claim Number: FA0807001217872
Complainant is Northwest Airlines, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jeffrey
A. Ehrich, of Leonard, Street and Deinard Professional
Association,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <northwest-air-lines.com>, registered with Todaynic.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Louis E. Condon as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 28, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 29, 2008.
On August 15, 2008, Todaynic.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <northwest-air-lines.com> domain name is registered with Todaynic.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Todaynic.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Todaynic.com, Inc. 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 August 20, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 9, 2008 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@northwest-air-lines.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 17, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon 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 <northwest-air-lines.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NORTHWEST AIRLINES mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <northwest-air-lines.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <northwest-air-lines.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Northwest Airlines, Inc., operates an airline transportation service. Complainant first registered its NORTHWEST AIRLINES mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on September 22, 1992 (Reg. No. 1,718,838).
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 15, 2008. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying links to third-party websites that compete with Complainant’s airline business.
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.
Complainant has provided evidence it registered its NORTHWEST AIRLINES mark with the USPTO. The Panel finds this registration sufficiently establishes Complainant’s rights in its mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) ("Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive."); see also 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.”).
Respondent’s disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s
mark with the following alterations: the substitution of a hyphen for a space,
the addition of another hyphen, and the addition of the generic top-level
domain “.com.” The Panel finds these
alterations are irrelevant in determining whether a disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to a mark. Thus, the Panel finds
Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See
Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding
that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy); see also Health Devices Corp. v.
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged Respondent does not have rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant is required to produce a prima facie case in support of its
allegations and then the burden shifts to Respondent to prove differently. The Panel finds Complainant has adequately
established a prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to
these proceedings, the Panel may assume Respondent does not possess rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel, however, will examine the record
to determine whether Respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
See G.D. Searle v. Martin
Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s
Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden
effectively shifts to Respondent. 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 Am.
Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120
(Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's
failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”).
Complainant contends Respondent is
not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The WHOIS information lists Respondent as “Capeka Hoffmann,” and
Complainant contends it has never authorized Respondent to use its NORTHWEST
AIRLINES mark. Therefore, the Panel
finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
See Gallup, Inc.
v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209
(Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the
respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not
known by the mark); see also Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA 173369
(Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that without demonstrable evidence to
support the assertion that a respondent is commonly known by a domain name, the
assertion must be rejected).
Respondent’s disputed domain name
resolves to a website that displays links to third-party websites that compete
with Complainant. The Panel finds
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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 Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban,
FA 203164 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not
using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)
because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the
complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial site).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying links and advertisements for third-party businesses that compete with Complainant. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes disruption and is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (“The disputed domain names resolve to websites that list links to competitors of Complainant, evidence that Respondent intends to disrupt Complainant’s business, a further indication of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); 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).
Respondent presumably receives compensation in the form of click-through fees for displaying third-party competing links and advertisements on the website resolving from the confusingly similar disputed domain name. The Panel finds Respondent is attempting to profit by using the goodwill Complainant has established in its NORTHWEST AIRLINES mark to attract Internet users to the disputed domain name, which is evidence of 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 Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <northwest-air-lines.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated: October 1, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum