American Airlines, Inc. v.
Proxied Domains - wlsa Client Account c/o Proxy Domain Manager
Claim Number: FA0902001248138
PARTIES
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 <americanairlinevacation.com>,
registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd.
PANEL
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.
Roberto A. Bianchi as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on February 17, 2009; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 19, 2009.
On February 18, 2009, Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to
the National Arbitration Forum that the <americanairlinevacation.com> domain
name is registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd.
and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Fabulous.com
Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. 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 February 23, 2009, a
Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 16, 2009 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@americanairlinevacation.com
by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 16, 2009.
On March 24, 2009, The Forum received an
Additional Submission from Complainant.
On March 30, 2009, Respondent submitted a Reply
to Complainant’s Supplemental Filing.
On March 25, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request
to have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the National Arbitration Forum
appointed Roberto A. Bianchi as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
In its Complaint, Complainant contends the following:
Complainant has legitimate rights to the
marks AMERICAN AIRLINES® and AMERICANAIRLINES VACATIONS™. Complainant’s
mark AMERICAN AIRLINES®, which Complainant has continuously used in connection
with air transportation services since at least as early as April 1934, has
acquired significant goodwill, widespread public recognition, and fame as a
means by which Complainant and its various goods and services are known to the
public and their source of origin are identified. Moreover, Complainant has developed
substantial common law rights in the service mark AMERICANAIRLINES VACATIONS™,
which is prominently displayed on Complainant’s web site <aavacations.com>
to advertise and promote Complainant’s services. The disputed domain
name <americanairlinevacation.com> is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s registered AMERICAN AIRLINES®
mark and to Complainant’s common law mark AMERICANAIRLINES VACATIONS™.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
in the disputed domain name. Upon information and belief, Respondent has
not used and does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The americanairlinevacation.com domain name resolves to a web site featuring
category links such as “Cheap Airfare” and “Vacation Packages.” Clicking on these links brings up a
“Sponsored Results” listing of various commercial web sites from which
Respondent presumably receives click-through fees. These sites offer travel and vacation
planning services in competition with Complainant, including the web site of a
competitor airline company “United.com”.
No available evidence suggests
that Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The domain name at issue is not the nickname
of Respondent or in any other way identified with or related to a legitimate
interest of Respondent. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise
permitted Respondent to use any of Complainant’s marks or to apply for or use
any domain name incorporating any of Complainant’s marks, including
Complainant’s famous mark AMERICAN AIRLINES® and Complainant’s common law mark
AMERICANAIRLINES VACATIONSTM..
Respondent has registered and is using the
disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent
is a “typo domain name pirate” or “typo squatter” because it registered and is
using a domain name comprising a misspelled variation of the Complainant’s
common law AMERICANAIRLINES VACATIONS™ mark.
Typosquatting is evidence of bad faith registration and use in violation
of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The
disputed domain name resolves to a web site featuring links to commercial
travel and vacation planning web sites from which Respondent presumably
receives click-through fees, including links to web sites of competitor
airlines. These factors support a conclusion
that Respondent registered the domain name americanairlinevacation.com for the
primary purpose of intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain,
Internet users to Respondent’s web site or other online locations, by creating
a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source,
sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s web site or of a
product or service on Respondent’s web site in violation of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(b).
B. Respondent
In its Reply, Respondent requests that the domain name in dispute be
transferred to Complainant without further findings of fact or liability,
including those related to the elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP
Policy. Respondent adds that the stipulation of the Respondent to the transfer
acts as an acceptance of the remedy demanded in the complaint. Respondent also
argues that it did not registere the disputed domain name in bad faith, but
with a purpose of using the domain name in Respondent’s direct navigation business
model, since the domain name consists of generic or descriptive terms.
C. Additional Submissions
Complainant’s
Additional Submission basically consists of a request that the Panel dismiss
Respondent’s request for transfer based on unilateral consent, and instead
order transfer of the domain name based on findings as to Policy ¶ 4(a)
(identicality, lack of legitimate rights or interests and bad faith
registration and use). Since many UDRP panels routinely grant transfer without
making any further findings where a respondent unilaterally and unconditionally
requests transfer of the domain name to the complainant, and because
Complainant’s Additional Submission does not contain any new information or
arguments that Complainant could not have anticipated, this Additional Submission
appears to be superfluous and will not be considered by the Panel. Accordingly,
the Panel need not consider Respondent’s reply thereto. See Elec. Commerce
Media, Inc. v.
FINDINGS
In the present case there is basic coincidence between the remedy
requested by Complainant and the unilateral consent to transfer stipulated by
Respondent. Accordingly, transfer should be granted.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights;
(2) the 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.
Where a
respondent unilaterally and unconditionally consents to transfer the domain
name in dispute, panels may also
issue orders for transfer of disputed domain names without making findings as
to Policy ¶ 4(a). In the present case, Respondent requests that the
Administrative Panel approves the remedy requested by the Complainant, i.e., that the disputed domain names be
transferred to Complainant. Does this request of Respondent amount to a
unilateral consent to transfer? The Panel believes it does, because immediately
after receiving notice of the complaint, Respondent offered Complainant to
transfer the domain name without conditions and expeditiously, a fact that
Complainant has not denied, although it has depicted Respondent’s request as a
scheme to escape a decision based on a finding in respect of ¶ 4(a).
Respondent’s stipulation for transfer in the present proceeding means a clear
agreement to the remedy requested by Complainant – transfer. As to Respondent’s
argument that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith, the
Panel believes that it is subsidiary in nature to Respondent’s unilateral and
unconditional consent to transfer, and does not contradict such stipulation.
Thus, the instant case is similar to those cases where panels granted transfer
based on respondent’s consent, such as in Williams-Sonoma,
Inc. v. EZ-Port, D2000-0207
(WIPO May 5, 2000) (although in
Williams-Sonoma the respondent had not submitted any response). This
Panel, like the panel in Williams-Sonoma believes that “the better course is to enter an order
granting the relief requested by the Complainant so that the transfer may occur
without further delay.” See also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v.
Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003)
(transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to
the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat.
Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has
agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient
and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of
the domain names.”).
DECISION
Considering that Respondent has stated its unconditional consent to the
remedy of transfer requested by Complainant, the Panel concludes that relief
shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain
name <americanairlinevacation.com> be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Roberto A. Bianchi, Panelist
Dated: April 8, 2009
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum
[1] The Forum’s Supplemental Rule 8 reads: “The Record of the Administrative Proceeding. The Complaint, Response, and additional written statements and documents provided in Paragraph 12 of the Rules and Paragraph 7 of the Supplemental Rules constitute the complete record to be considered by the Panel.”