Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Charanjeet Singh d/b/a Washington Dulles Flyer LLC
Claim Number: FA1009001344617
Complainant is Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (“Complainant”), represented by Alain J. Lapter, of Bean, Kinney & Korman, P.C., Virginia, USA. Respondent is Charanjeet Singh d/b/a Washington Dulles Flyer LLC (“Respondent”), Virginia, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <washington-dullesflyer.com>, registered with GoDaddy.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.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 2, 2010.
On September 7, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <washington-dullesflyer.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.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 September 8, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 28, 2010 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@washington-dullesflyer.com by e-mail. Also on September 8, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 12, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., 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" through submission of a Written Notice, as defined in Rule 1. 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 <washington-dullesflyer.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WASHINGTON FLYER mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <washington-dullesflyer.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <washington-dullesflyer.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, operates and maintains both Ronald Reagan Washington Airport and Washington Dulles International Airport. Complainant uses its WASHINGTON FLYER mark in connection with its ground transportation services to and from Dulles. Complainant owns a trademark registration for the WASHINGTON FLYER mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,357,214 issued August 27, 1985).
Respondent, Charanjeet Singh d/b/a Washington Dulles Flyer LLC, registered the <washington-dullesflyer.com> domain name on January 19, 2008. The disputed domain name resolves to a website advertising competing ground transportation services in the Washington D.C.-metro area.
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 owns a trademark registration for the WASHINGTON FLYER mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,357,214 issued August 27, 1985). The Panel finds that a USPTO trademark registration is conclusive evidence of Complainant’s rights in the WASHINGTON FLYER mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also Expedia, Inc. v. Emmerson, FA 873346 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 9, 2007) (“Complainant’s trademark registrations with the USPTO adequately demonstrate its rights in the [EXPEDIA] mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <washington-dullesflyer.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WASHINGTON FLYER mark. Respondent adds a hyphen and the descriptive word “dulles” to Complainant’s mark, deletes the space between the terms, and appends the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that the addition of a descriptive word to Complainant’s mark is insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Chanel, Inc. v. Cologne Zone, D2000-1809 (WIPO Feb. 22, 2001) (“CHANEL, the salient feature of the Domain Names, is identical to a mark in which Complainant has shown prior rights. The addition of the generic term, “perfumes” is not a distinguishing feature, and in this case seems to increase the likelihood of confusion because it is an apt term for Complainant’s business.”). The Panel finds that inserting a hyphen into Complainant’s mark fails to prevent confusing similarity. See Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also 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). The Panel also finds that the elimination of the space and the addition of the gTLD are minor changes that do not affect confusing similarity for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “spaces are impermissible and a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names. Therefore, the panel finds that the disputed domain name [<americangenerallifeinsurance.com>] is confusingly similar to the complainant’s [AMERICAN GENERAL] mark.”). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <washington-dullesflyer.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WASHINGTON FLYER mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant has put forth a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds that Complainant has adequately established a prima facie case in these proceedings. Since Respondent has failed to respond to the allegations against it, the Panel may assume that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); 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 that Respondent has received no authorization or license from Complainant to use or register the WASHINGTON FLYER mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information for the <washington-dullesflyer.com> domain name lists the registrant as “Washington Dulles Flyer LLC,” but the Panel finds that this WHOIS information is insufficient, without other corroborating evidence, to establish that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Accordingly, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <washington-dullesflyer.com> domain name. See Yoga Works, Inc. v. Arpita, FA 155461 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not “commonly known by” the <shantiyogaworks.com> domain name despite listing its name as “Shanti Yoga Works” in its WHOIS contact information because there was “no affirmative evidence before the Panel that the respondent was ever ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name prior to its registration of the disputed domain name”); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Dough, FA 245971 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 5, 2004) (finding that although “the WHOIS information for the <yasexhoo.com> domain name states that the registrant is YASEXHOO . . . this alone is insufficient to show that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name.”).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <washington-dullesflyer.com> domain name resolves to a commercial website that offers ground transportation services to and from the Washington D.C.-area airports. As Respondent’s disputed domain name therefore diverts Internet users away from Complainant’s website to a competing commercial website, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use does not comport with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefits is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute either 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)).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <washington-dullesflyer.com> domain name resolves to a website that offers the same type of ground transportation services to and from the DC-area airports that Complainant offers. This commercial use of the disputed domain name that appropriates Complainant’s mark places Respondent in the position of a competitor with Complainant and disrupts Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users likely seeking Complainant to Respondent’s competing website. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered the <washington-dullesflyer.com> domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, Complainant, which demonstrates bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. MCM Tours, Inc., FA 444510 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 6, 2005) (“The Respondent is a travel agency and thus operates in the same business as Complainant. The parties can therefore be considered as competitors. The Panel thus finds that the Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, which constitutes evidence of registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Jerie v. Burian, FA 795430 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2006) (concluding that the respondent registered and used the <sportlivescore.com> domain name in order to disrupt the complainant’s business under the LIVESCORE mark because the respondent was maintaining a website in direct competition with the complainant).
Complainant alleges that the website resolving from Respondent’s <washington-dullesflyer.com> domain name is a commercial website, which Respondent uses in the operation of its business providing ground transportation services to and from the DC-area airports. Complainant contends that Respondent incorporated Complainant’s WASHINGTON FLYER mark into the <washington-dullesflyer.com> domain name to intentionally attract Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion between Complainant and Respondent. The fact that Complainant and Respondent both operate in the same line of business, in addition to Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark, further increases the likelihood of confusion as Internet users may be unaware that they have reached Respondent’s website instead of Complainant’s website. Respondent uses the disputed domain name in this way for commercial gain as the diverted Internet users presumably translate into business for Respondent. The Panel thus finds that Respondent’s activities are evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Carroll, FA 97035 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the domain name, for commercial gain, to intentionally attract users to a direct competitor of the complainant); see also Nokia Corp. v. Private, D2000-1271 (WIPO Nov. 3, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the domain name resolved to a website that offered similar products as those sold under the complainant’s famous mark).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <washington-dullesflyer.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: October 13, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum