national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Alaska Airlines v. Taranga Services Pty Ltd / Domain Admin

Claim Number: FA1205001444417

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Alaska Airlines (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA.  Respondent is Taranga Services Pty Ltd / Domain Admin (“Respondent”), New Zealand.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <alakaairlines.com>, <alasaairlines.com>, <alasakaairlines.com>, <alasakairlines.com>, <alaskaailrines.com>, <alaskaairelines.com>, <alaskaairines.com>, <alaskaairliens.com>, <alaskaairlies.com>, <alaskaairlins.com>, and <alsakaairlines.com>, registered with Moniker.

 

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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 16, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on May 16, 2012.

 

On May 18, 2012, Moniker confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <alakaairlines.com>, <alasaairlines.com>, <alasakaairlines.com>, <alasakairlines.com>, <alaskaailrines.com>, <alaskaairelines.com>, <alaskaairines.com>, <alaskaairliens.com>, <alaskaairlies.com>, <alaskaairlins.com>, and <alsakaairlines.com> domain names are registered with Moniker and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Moniker, has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

 

On May 25, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 14, 2012 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@alakaairlines.com, postmaster@alasaairlines.com, postmaster@alasakaairlines.com, postmaster@

alasakairlines.com, postmaster@alaskaailrines.com, postmaster@alaskaairelines.com, postmaster@

alaskaairines.com, postmaster@alaskaairliens.com, postmaster@alaskaairlies.com, postmaster@

alaskaairlins.com, and postmaster@alsakaairlines.com.  Also on May 25, 2012, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 June 20,2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.  Panel has issued 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.   Complainant

Complainant asserts trademark rights and alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark. 

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

1.    Complainant uses the trademark ALASKA AIRLINES in connection with its air transportation services;

2.    Complainant owns United States Federal Trademark Regn. No. 1,561,416 for ALASKA AIRLINES registered October 17, 1989;

3.    The disputed domain names were registered on the following dates: <alakaairlines.com> domain name on May 25, 2004; the <alasaairlines.com> domain name on June 16, 2004; the <alasakaairlines.com> domain name on June 12, 2004; the <alasakairlines.com> domain name on June 12, 2004; the <alaskaailrines.com> domain name on June 1, 2004; the <alaskaairelines.com> domain name on October 20, 2005; the <alaskaairines.com> domain name on May 15, 2004; the <alaskaairliens.com> domain name on June 1, 2004; the <alaskaairlies.com> domain name on June 12, 2004; the <alaskaairlins.com> domain name on November 27, 2005; and the <alsakaairlines.com> domain name on May 25, 2004.

4.    The disputed domain names resolve to websites featuring click-through links to Complainant’s competitors;

5.    There is no commercial agreement between the parties and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its trademark or to register any domain name incorporating its trademark.

 

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 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

(1)  the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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 (seeVertical 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.”)).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights.  It is well established by former decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights.  Since Complainant provides evidence of its United States Patent and Trademark Office trademark registration, the Panel is satisfied that it has trademark rights (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Periasami Malain, FA 705262 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 19, 2006) (“Complainant’s registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office of the trademark, STATE FARM, establishes its rights in the STATE FARM mark pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).”); see also Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) finding that the complainant’s registration of the MADD mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office establishes the complainant’s rights in the mark for purposes of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i)).

 

For the purposes of comparison of the disputed domain names with Complainant’s trademark it is accepted that the gTLD, “.com” can be disregarded (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).

 

The question resolves to whether the following terms are confusingly similarity with the trademark ALASKA AIRLINES:

alakaairlines

alasaairlines

alasakaairlines

alasakairlines

alaskaailrines

alaskaairelines

alaskaairines

alaskaairliens

alaskaairlies

alaskaairlins

alsakaairlines

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent is a “typosquatter” and that each disputed domain name is an obvious and deliberate misspelling of Complainant’s trademark.  Panel finds that all the disputed domain names are transparent machinations of Complainant’s trademark and are confusing similar to that trademark (see, for example, Delta Corporate Identity, Inc. v. SearchTerms, FA 590678 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 14, 2005) finding that the <dleta.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s DELTA mark).

 

Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy with respect to the domain

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i) 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 or services;  or

 

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

 

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000); see also Hanna‑Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006);  see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006).

 

The publicly available WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Taranga Services Pty Ltd / Domain Admin” and so the prima facie position is that Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names.  There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights.  There is no evidence that Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the trademark and Complainant denies any such authorization.

 

There is no evidence that the disputed domain names have been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of the dispute.  Complainant provides some evidence that the domain names resolve to websites which display links to Complainant’s competitors in the air transportation industry (see 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).  

 

Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case and so the onus shifts to Respondent to establish a legitimate interest in the domain names.  In the absence of a Response, that onus is not rebutted and so Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and that it is being used in bad faith. 

 

Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established.

 

The four specified circumstances are:

 

‘(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or 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 the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii) the respondent has 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 Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

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

 

(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent’s website 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 the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.’

 

Panel finds that Respondent’s actions fall under at least paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.  Panel has already found the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.  The evidence Complainant provides demonstrates that the domain names correspond with websites carrying links such as “Cheap Flight on CheapOair” and “ORBITZ – Official Site.”  Panel  find it more likely than not that Respondent attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the online locations associated with the domain names by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation (see AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes).

 

In other circumstances a question of laches may have arisen for Panel’s consideration in view of the fact that the domain names were registered so very long before this Complainant was filed, however in the absence of a Response addressing that and other issues there is no compelling reason for Panel to take it into account.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy in relation to each of the disputed domain names, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <alakaairlines.com>, <alasaairlines.com>, <alasakaairlines.com>, <alasakairlines.com>, <alaskaailrines.com>, <alaskaairelines.com>, <alaskaairines.com>, <alaskaairliens.com>, <alaskaairlies.com>, <alaskaairlins.com>, and <alsakaairlines.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated:  June 21, 2012

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page