DECISION

 

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Osman Riaz

Claim Number: FA1008001344103

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (“Complainant”), Washington, D.C., USA, represented by Alain J. Lapter, of Bean Kinney & Korman, P.C.  Respondent is Osman Riaz (“Respondent”), Virginia, USA, represented by Osman Riaz.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <washingtonflyer.us>, registered with 1&1 INTERNET AG.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Bruce E. O'Connor as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This decision is being rendered in accordance with the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the National Arbitration Forum’s UDRP Supplemental Rules (the “Supplemental Rules”).

 

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on August 31, 2010; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 2, 2010.

 

On September 3, 2010, 1&1 INTERNET AG confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <washingtonflyer.us> is registered with 1&1 INTERNET AG and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  1&1 INTERNET AG has verified that Respondent is bound by the 1&1 INTERNET AG registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.

 

On September 8, 2010, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of September 28, 2010 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent in compliance with Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 27, 2010.

 

On October 13, 2010, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E. O'Connor as Panelist.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

This Complaint is based on Complainant’s distinctive and federally registered service mark WASHINGTON FLYER and Design for “providing ground transportation to and from airports” (“WASHINGTON FLYER mark”), U.S. Reg. No. 1,357,214.

 

As a result of its substantial, continuous and exclusive use of its WASHINGTON FLYER mark in commerce for over 25 years, Complainant has acquired a significant amount of notoriety and goodwill therein. During the past two and a half decades of using the mark, Complainant’s fleet has grown to a “family” of transportation options, including over 300 taxicabs, as well as coach services and a strategic alliance with SuperShuttle® van services. Through such use, Complainant’s WASHINGTON FLYER mark has become well-known by consumers as a source identifier for Complainant’s transportation services.

 

Complainant also owns a U.S. Federal Registration for the mark THE WASHINGTON FLYER (Reg. No. 1,356,548) for “periodic publications, namely, newsletters and magazines containing material that is of interest to person travelling through the Washington, D.C. airports”.

 

Complainant is an independent body created by the Commonwealth of Virginia and the District of Columbia. Its main duties are to operate and maintain both Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (“Reagan”) and Washington Dulles International Airport (“Dulles”), two of the busiest and most well-known airports in the world. Combined, the airports service over 42 million passengers per year and over 600,000 annual in-bound and out-bound flights. In fact, Dulles is the second busiest trans-Atlantic airport on the Eastern seaboard.

 

Since as early as 1983, Complainant has used the WASHINGTON FLYER mark to identify its ground transportation services to and from Dulles. Complainant has spent substantial amounts of money in advertising and promoting its services and building consumer brand recognition. Passengers arriving at Dulles and in need of taxi services to the Washington DC-metro area will encounter a taxi stand replete with Complainant’s WASHINGTON FLYER mark and will, thereafter, proceed to a vehicle to take them to their destination. The taxis are also clearly marked with Complainant’s mark. In all, the WASHINGTON FLYER branded fleet consists of over 300 sedan-style taxis and several coaches, serving over one million passengers yearly. As a result of Complainant’s long-term and exclusive use of its WASHINGTON FLYER mark, it has gained substantial goodwill and recognition.

 

In addition to serving the public to and from Dulles, Complainant also maintains a significant presence on the Internet, where it provides information on its taxi and coach services, including maps, rates and booking information. Indeed, Complainant created its <washfly.com> domain name on July 30, 1998.

 

The disputed domain name resolves to a website that is used to advertise taxi services in the Washington DC-metro area, including services to and from Reagan and Dulles.

 

Nothing in the registration information for <washingtonflyer.us> suggests that Respondent has rights in the disputed domain name. Moreover, there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant, and Complainant has not granted any license or consent, express or implied, to Respondent to use “WASHINGTON FLYER”, or any colorable derivation, in a domain name or in any other manner.

 

It is clear from the facts that Respondent created the disputed domain name as a clear attempt at cyber-squatting. In all likelihood, Respondent’s only intended use for the domain name is to generate revenue from people mistakenly accessing the site entering the incorrect gTLD, and, thereby, ordering Respondent’s taxi services rather than those of Complainant.

 

Complainant also owns the <washingtonflyer.com> domain name, which it uses as the Web portal for its magazines and articles that are of interest to person travelling through the Washington, D.C. airports, such services identified in Complainant’s ‘548 registration.

 

In recognition of Complainant’s superior rights, coupled with Respondent’s complete lack of any legitimate rights to the domain name and its bad faith registration and use of the domain name, it is requested that the infringing domain name be transferred to Complainant.

 

Respondent’s Domain Name is Identical to Complainant’s WASHINGTON FLYER Mark

 

There is little doubt that Respondent’s <washingtonflyer.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WASHINGTON FLYER mark. The literal elements are identical and the “.us” does not alter the overall commercial impression of the marks. As consistently held, the addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.us” would not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the WASHINGTON FLYER mark because all domain names are required to have a top-level domain.

 

 

 

 

Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in Complainant’s WASHINGTON FLYER Mark or the Domain Name in Dispute

 

Currently, the disputed domain name resolves to a website for a business that purports to offer ground transportation services including to and from DC-area airports.  Without a doubt, Respondent’s sole intention in registering and using this domain name is to siphon off Complainant’s goodwill that it has created in its WASHINGTON FLYER mark for illegitimate advantage and commercial gain. This scheme of diverting consumers from Complainant’s services evidences Respondent utter lack or rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Respondent is also not commonly known by the domain name. The WHOIS information for the domain lists “Osman Riaz” as the registrant. Nowhere in the WHOIS information does it reference any entity known as “Washington Flyer”, nor does it indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the <washingtonflyer.us> domain name.

 

In addition, Respondent cannot establish use of the domain name (or a name corresponding to the domain name) in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In fact, the evidence shows that Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name to operate a website that advertise services identical to and competing with those of Complainant.

 

As Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, it is Respondent’s burden to negate this evidence.

 

Respondent Registered and is Using the Domain Name in Bad Faith

 

It is clear that Respondent’s entire business model is predicated on confused consumers who seek Complainant’s services and mistakenly enter the <washingtonflyer.us> URL into their web browser because they merely typed in the wrong gTLD.

 

Furthermore, Respondent should have been aware of Complainant’s rights in the WASHINGTON FLYER mark. Complainant’s federal registrations serve as constructive notice to Respondent of Complainant’s rights in the WASHINGTON FLYER mark. See 15 U.S.C. § 1072.

 

Given the fact that Complainant has used the WASHINGTON FLYER mark since at least as early as 1983, and that Respondent offers ground transportation services to Dulles, it is inconceivable that Respondent was unaware of Complainant’s mark, particularly given the fleet of sedans and coaches bearing Complainant’s mark.

 

Since Respondent was on notice of Complainant’s ownership in its WASHINGTON

FLYER Mark, the registration of a domain name incorporating the identical “Washington Flyer” term is, by itself, evidence of bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

An Internet search on Google® of “Washington Flyer” returns responses almost exclusively directed at Complainant’s ongoing business. Because Complainant has used the WASHINGTON FLYER mark continuously and extensively for a significant number of years prior to Respondent’s registration of the domain names, a search conducted at the time of registration would have been substantially similar. Respondent’s ability to register the disputed domain name was only rendered possible because Complainant did not register every potential gTLD for its WASHINGTON FLYER mark.

 

It is clear that Respondent has no intention of using the website or domain name for legitimate purposes, one which does not create consumer confusion, or otherwise harm or denigrate Complainant and its federally registered WASHINGTON FLYER mark. There is simply no plausible alternative for choosing such a domain name, particularly when Respondent is not commonly known by such mark.

 

 Respondent’s domain name is clearly designed to lure Complainant’s consumers to Respondent’s web sites that consist of advertisements for services identical to those of Complainant and not associated with or endorsed by Complainant. Furthermore, there is no evidence to demonstrate that Respondent has ever had a bona fide intent to use the domain names in a manner that would not engender consumer confusion and denigrate Complainant’s WASHINGTON FLYER Mark.

 

Based on its satisfaction of all three elements necessary to secure a favorable award under the Policy, Complainant requests that the Panel issue a decision that the domain name

<washingtonflyer.us> be transferred to Complainant.

 

B. Respondent

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

The Complainant trademark is for a magazine called Washington Flyer.

 

The domain name in dispute is being used by a Limousine Company based in Washington DC for people flying out to Washington Dulles Airport in Virginia, hence the name Washington Flyer.

 

The company does not provide any taxi services as stated by the Complainant. It does not provide any taxi services to Reagan Airport as stated by the Complainant.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interest

 

We are a bona fide Limousine company providing high end transportation for preferred clients through advance bookings. We do not provide any taxi service. We are licensed to operate as a For Hire Limousine Company. Taxi Companies are issued different vehicle plates and the Complainant has none of the vehicles stated in its Complaint registered under the Washington Flyer name. They are either registered to individuals or to Red Top taxi cabs. The domain name in dispute reflects a genuine business and is not meant for sale/renting to Washfly or the journal or flyer published by them.

 

We are the owners of Washington Flyer Limousine services and have been in business since 1989 and people associate us with a High end service and not a taxi service.

 

We have used this Washingtonflyer.us domain name for a specific limousine service. The Complainant is attempting to use its magazine trademark to cover all forms of businesses by virtue of a trademark.

 

We have been known as a washingtonflyer.us  Limousine service providing a Limousine service that is personalized.

 

The Complainant has registered the trademark for the purpose of a magazine or flyer. At some stage Complainant decided to start getting into the taxi service and shuttle service in partnership with Red Top taxicab and Super Shuttle Services respectively. The Complainant owns no taxis or shuttle buses.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

The domain name in dispute is specifically used for limousine service and not for any periodicals or magazines or flyers for which the Complainant registered its trademark.

 

At no time was the domain ever used for a magazine or flyer. We have always used it as transportation for people flying out of Dulles Airport in Virginia from Washington DC

 

There are several WashingtonFlyer.Com, etc., main domain names that the Complainant has made no effort to register. Complainant is using our good faith services for our Limousine customers to direct services to its new affiliates, Red Top taxi cab and Super Shuttle services.

 

The Complainant is intentionally using the domain name in bad faith to direct our high end customers in using their low quality affiliate services not in any way owned by the Complainant.

 

The Complainant has specifically used the trademark for a publication or flyer. Now in an attempt to use our good name in the business to direct our customers to their affiliates, Red Top Taxicab and Super Shuttle, is tantamount to hijacking our good name.

 

FINDINGS

Policy

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the WASHINGTON FLYER mark and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that trademark.  The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in and to the disputed domain name.  Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered or used that domain name in bad faith.

 

 

DISCUSSION

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.”

 

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 or is being used in bad faith.

 

Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, except as where noted below, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the WASHINGTON FLYER mark through its U.S. Registration No.  1,357,214, August 27, 1985.

 

The disputed domain name replicates identically that trademark and then merely deletes the space between the words in the mark.  The addition of the country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “.us” does not sufficiently distinguish Respondent’s domain name from its mark.  See Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Basic Trademark S.A. v. Antares S.p.A, FA 1130680 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2008) (“The <robedikappa.us> domain name is identical to the ROBE DI KAPPA mark.  The only difference is the omission of the space between the words and the addition of the ccTLD “.us,” which does not significantly distinguish the domain name from the mark.”); see also Mattel, Inc. v. Unknown, FA 490083 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 11, 2005) (“The domain name [<Barbie.us>] is identical to the trademark “Barbie”, as it uses the trademark in its entirety. The only difference is the addition of the country code “us” which for this purpose is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the trademark.”).

 

Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Complainant’s rights in the WASHINGTON FLYER mark or with regards to whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark.

 

The Panel finds that the Complainant has carried its burden of proof under ¶ 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.  See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names, which burden is light.  If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has made such a prima facie showing.  Respondent is using the domain name in dispute for services within the scope of those for which Complainant has secured rights in the WASHINGTON FLYER mark. Respondent's provision of limousine services to and from airports comes within the scope of "providing ground transportation to and from airports" covered by Complainant's '214 registration.   

 

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists four circumstances in particular, without limitation, that demonstrate rights or legitimate interests of a domain name registrant to a domain name, for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)   You are the owner or beneficiary of a trade or service mark that is identical to the domain name;

(ii)  Before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services; or

(iii)   You (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iv) You are making a legitimate non‑commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Respondent does not contend that it can avail itself of the defenses in Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)[1]. See Meow Media Inc. v. Basil, FA 113280 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 20, 2002 (finding that there was no evidence that Respondent was the owner or beneficiary of a mark that is identical to the <persiankitty.com> domain name); see also Pepsico, Inc. v. Becky, FA 117014 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 3, 2002) (holding that because Respondent did not own any trademarks or service marks reflecting the <pepsicola.us> domain name, it had no rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that UDRP ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply). 

 

Respondent's defense is centered on its contention that its limousine service offered through use of the disputed domain name is distinguished from the taxi and coach services offered by Complainant through use of the WASHINGTON FLYER trademark.  Respondent also argues that Complainant has used and registered the WASHINGTON FLYER mark only for a publication or flyer.

 

In doing so, Respondent ignores the showing of trademark rights in the WASHINGTON FLYER mark for transportation services resulting from the '214 registration.  The Panel also finds that the distinction between limousine services and taxi services is one without a difference.  It is common knowledge that limousine services and taxi services directly compete for the same types of customers seeking transportation to and from airports.  Respondent's web site (http://www.washingtonflyer.us/reservations.htm) shows that Respondent takes telephone reservations for limousine service from and to Reagan and Dulles airports.  Complainant also takes telephone reservations for taxi services to and from these airports using the WASHINGTON FLYER mark.  The fact that Respondent offers its services to "high end" customers is irrelevant.  See Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website that offered services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks); see also Gardens Alive, Inc. v. D&S Linx, FA 203126 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2003) (finding that the respondent used a domain name for commercial benefit by diverting Internet users to a website that sold goods and services similar to those offered by the complainant and thus, was not using the name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

 

The only way that Respondent could demonstrate its bona fide use would be to show that its use or registration predated the rights of Complainant in the WASHINGTON FLYER mark.  But, that is not the case.  The mark was registered in 1985.  Respondent's claimed (and unsubstantiated) first operation of its limousine service was in 1989 and the domain name in dispute was registered in 2005. 

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has carried its burden of proof under ¶ 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

 

 

 

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The circumstances of Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are illustrative but not exhaustive of the circumstances under which bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) can be established.

 

Paragraph 4(b) reads:

 

[T] he following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

 

i) Circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) You have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) You have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) By using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

 

In each of the circumstances listed in Policy ¶ 4(b), or otherwise, the Complainant must establish that Respondent intentionally and actively registered or used the domain names at issue for the purpose of causing injury to the Complainant[2].

 

Lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) does not automatically translate into a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Proof of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) generally requires more than assertions of bad faith.  See Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. Samjo CellTech.Ltd, FA 406512 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2005) (finding that the complainant failed to establish that respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because mere assertions of bad faith are insufficient for a complainant to establish Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also Graman USA Inc. v. Shenzhen Graman Indus. Co., FA 133676 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 16, 2003) (finding that general allegations of bad faith without supporting facts or specific examples do not supply a sufficient basis upon which the panel may conclude that the respondent acted in bad faith).

 

Here, Complainant has shown that its trademark rights have existed for 25 years, that it has been using the WASHINGTON FLYER mark during that period for taxi and coach services[3], and that Complainant and Respondent are in direct competition.  The Panel can draw no conclusion but that both the registration and use of the domain name in dispute were intentional acts on the part of the Respondent to capitalize on the WASHINGTON FLYER mark.  Use of the domain name disrupts the business of Complainant and diverts customers to Respondent, because of the likelihood of confusion with the WASHINGTON FLYER mark. See Velv, LLC v. AAE, FA 677922 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <arizonashuttle.net> domain name, which contained the complainant’s ARIZONA SHUTTLE mark, to attract Internet traffic to the respondent’s website offering competing travel services violated UDRP ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <saflock.com> domain name to offer goods competing with the complainant’s illustrates the respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name, evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to UDRP ¶ 4(b)(iv)).

 

The Panel finds that the Complainant has carried its burden of proof under ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

 

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has not engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.  See World Wrestling Fed’n Entm’t, Inc. v. Ringside Collectibles, D2000-1306 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (“Because Complainant has satisfied [all of] the elements of the Policy, Respondent’s allegation of reverse domain name hijacking must fail”); see also Gallup, Inc. v. PC+s.p.r.l., FA 190461 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 2, 2003) (finding no reverse domain name hijacking where complainant prevailed on the “identical/confusingly similar” prong of the Policy).

 

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <washingtonflyer.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

__________________________________________________

 

Bruce E. O’Connor, Panelist
Dated: October 27, 2010

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page


 



[1] Respondent has not established any trade or service marks in "Washington Flyer," uses the trade name "Washington Flyer Limousine," and is running a commercial business at a web site using the disputed domain name.

[2] The usTLD Policy requires proof of either bad faith registration or bad faith use, while the UDRP Policy literally requires proof of both bad faith registration and bad faith use.

[3] Complainant has submitted prints of its web site showing current use of the mark, and copies of its magazine showing use of the mark in 1989, 1998 and 2000, and undated photos of its taxis and coaches bearing the mark.