United Air Lines, Inc. v. HOLLY V SCHILLING
Claim Number: FA1301001479769
Complainant is United Air Lines, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Michael C. Henning of United Air Lines, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is HOLLY V SCHILLING (“Respondent”), Indiana, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <united-aircargo.net>, registered with Register.com.
The undersigned certifies he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 10, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on January 11, 2013.
On January 15, 2013, Register.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <united-aircargo.net> domain name is registered with Register.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com 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 January 15, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 4, 2013 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@united-aircargo.net. Also on January 15, 2013, 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 February 8, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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. 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
1. This Complaint is based upon the name, trademark, and service mark UNITED and a family of related marks that United owns and uses in commerce in connection with airline transportation services. For over eighty years, United has been one of the largest commercial airline operators and transportation service providers in the world. Indeed, United (together with United Express) operates an average of 5,557 flights a day to 378 airports on six continents from its hubs in Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Guam, Houston, Los Angeles, New York/Newark, San Francisco, Tokyo and Washington, D.C. Among other services, United offers airport-to-airport transportation of animals as part of its cargo business.
2. United’s issued United States registrations include (1) Registration No. 1,750,451 for the word mark UNITED AIRLINES (registered Feb. 2, 1993); (2) Registration No. 676,462 for the mark UNITED in stylized form (registered Mar. 31, 1959); (3) Registration No. 2,651,633 for the word mark UNITED CARGO (registered Nov. 19, 2002) and (4) Registration No. 1,598,941 for the mark UNITED AIRLINES & DESIGN (registered May 29, 1990). Moreover, United has been using the UNITED name and mark since 1929 and continues to use this name and mark in connection with all of its businesses throughout the world (stating first use on 2-1-1929). As a result of the widespread, long-term, continuous, and prominent use of this mark, the UNITED mark and variations thereof have acquired significant goodwill, wide public recognition, and fame as a means by which United and its goods and services are known to the public and their source and origin are identified.
FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS
A. The Disputed Domain Name Is Confusingly Similar To United’s Marks.
3. United has established rights in the UNITED mark and variations thereof under ICANN Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i) through registration of the marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, as well as other trademark authorities. United Air Lines, Inc. v. Fundacion Private Whois c/o Domain Administrator, FA 1460934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 16, 2012) (finding that United “has rights in the UNITED AIRLINES service mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the USPTO”); see also UnitedHealth Group Inc. v. Hassan, FA 0947081 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 17, 2007) (finding that the complainant had established rights in its marks for purposes of Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i) as a result of having several trademark registrations with the USPTO). Moreover, as the owner of the UNITED mark and its many variations, including UNITED AIRLINES and UNITED CARGO, United has invested a substantial amount of money in an effort to market its goods and services throughout the world without confusion.
4. Respondent’s united-aircargo.net domain name is identical or confusingly similar to United’s portfolio of marks because it incorporates the entirety of the UNITED and UNITED CARGO marks and incorporates the dominant features of the UNITED AIRLINES mark except for abbreviating the word “airlines” to “air”, along with including a hyphen and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.net”. As found by a prior Panel, “Respondent’s abbreviation of ‘airlines’ to ‘air’ does not distinguish Respondent’s disputed domain name from [United’s] mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).” United Air Lines, Inc. v. Privacy Ltd. Disclosed Agent for YOLAPT, FA 1469439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 13, 2012); see also Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Jim, FA 1254675 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2009) (“Addition of the descriptive word ‘air’ does not sufficiently distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark. The word ‘air’ describes Complainant’s business and its relation to the airline industry.”). Moreover, “[t]he addition of the hyphen and top level domain name do nothing to distinguish the domain name from [United’s] mark.” Emaar Props. PJSC v. Nobalaa co, FA 1472100 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2012). As a result, the disputed domain name is identical to, or at a minimum confusingly similar to, United’s mark pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i).
B. Respondent Has No Rights Or Legitimate Interests In The Disputed Domain Name.
5. Numerous factors show that Respondent lacks any rights to or legitimate interests in united-aircargo.net. First, United has not granted any license, permission, or authorization to Holly V Schilling or to “Domain Discreet Privacy Service” (Respondent’s privacy-shielded name at the time United filed this action) for the use of the UNITED mark and family of marks for any purpose. Second, United is aware of no evidence, such as the WHOIS information supplied by Respondent for this domain name, showing that Respondent is operating a legitimate, non-phishing business under the united-aircargo.net domain name or that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
6. Third, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to impersonate United and to misdirect Internet traffic from United’s web site to Respondent’s web site. “[T]he Respondent, in using [a] confusingly similar domain name[] to mislead Complainant’s customers, is not making a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name[] pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii).” Vatankhah v. Identity Protection Service, FA 1432522 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2012) (finding Respondent’s use of a web site to impersonate the Complainant and redirect Complainant’s clients to other sites showed that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also FatWallet, Inc. v. www.fatyourwallet.com a/k/a Fat YourWallet, FA 1296996 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 27, 2010) (“Respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as [United] is further evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶4(a)(i) in the disputed domain name”).
7. Fourth, Respondent’s domain name is being used in connection with an e-mail scam, in which message recipients are directed to visit united-aircargo.net in order to purportedly ship animals on United. Respondent does so in order to phish for customer information. “Impersonating Complainant in order to deceive e-mail recipients and draw them to a site of unknown purpose and origin is not a legitimate or bona fide use of this domain” Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Admin / Registration Suspended – Trademark, FA 1449122 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2012); Komar & Sons, Inc. v. Bates, FA 1405374 (Nat Arb. Forum Oct. 12, 2011) (finding that a use of the disputed domain name in connection with a phishing scam does not coincide with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). Given all of these reasons, it is clear that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name united-aircargo.net. See ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
C. The Disputed Domain Name Was Registered And Is Being Used In Bad Faith.
8. Respondent’s registration of united-aircargo.net several weeks ago and immediate use of United’s marks on Respondent’s web site, as well as Respondent’s use of a privacy service to initially shield her registration information, strongly suggest that Respondent had actual knowledge of United’s rights in its marks when Respondent registered the united-aircargo.net domain name. Additionally, given United’s United States trademark registrations and substantial presence on the Internet, Respondent was undoubtedly aware of United’s famous name and UNITED mark when she registered the united-aircargo.net domain name.
9. At a minimum, Respondent had constructive notice of United’s rights in its marks due to United’s registration of its UNITED mark and family of related marks with the USPTO and its use of the UNITED mark since the year 1929. “Respondent’s registration of the domain name including Complainant’s [UNITED] mark with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(a)(iii).” Radisson Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Stillekens, FA 0570293 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2005). Moreover, as discussed below, United respectfully submits that Respondent chose the united-aircargo.net domain name in order to misleadingly divert Internet customers for commercial gain and/or disrupt the business of United. See ICANN Policy ¶¶4(b)(iii)-(iv).
1. Respondent Is Diverting Internet Customers For Commercial Gain.
10. Respondent is using united-aircargo.net to impersonate United and its pet transportation business and is doing so for illegal commercial gain. Specifically, Respondent’s web page includes an “About Us” tab which states, “United Air Cargo We [sic] have 34 years of pet handling experience and 19 years of pet shipping experience[.]”. Additionally, the “Online Payment” tab on the united-aircargo.net web site encourages consumers to enter personal credit card information. At least one consumer provided her credit card number to Respondent on the Respondent’s web site, thinking that she was providing her sensitive financial information to United. By perpetrating a fraud and misleadingly attracting Internet customers to her web site for commercial gain, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use of united-aircargo.net. See Emaar Props. PJSC v. Nobalaa co, FA 1472100 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2012) (finding bad faith when Respondent used a domain name to mislead customers into believing that Respondent was Complainant for the purpose of perpetuating a scam).
11. Additionally, Respondent’s use of a corresponding e-mail scam to direct traffic to her united-aircargo.net web site so that Respondent can phish for users’ financial information “clearly demonstrates bad faith registration and use.” Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Admin / Registration Suspended – Trademark, FA 1449122 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2012); see also Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Nelson, FA 0241972 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 29, 2004) (finding a domain name to be registered and used in bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv) because it was being used for “fraudulent purposes”).
2. Respondent Registered The Disputed Domain Name
Primarily To Disrupt The Business Of United.
12. In addition, Respondent is disrupting United’s business by impersonating United and using the disputed domain name to facilitate a phishing operation. Numerous internal United employees have needed to investigate Respondent’s scam, and United’s goodwill has been affected by Respondent’s conduct of misleading customers into thinking that United was associated with the disputed domain name. Respondent’s attempt to pass off united-aircargo.net as being affiliated with United constitutes disruption and bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iii). See The Exploratorium v. port80cafe, FA 1269220 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2009) (finding that passing oneself off as being affiliated with a complainant constitutes bad faith registration and use); American Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith where the respondent hosted a web site that “duplicated Complainant’s mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant’s business”).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(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.
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 Complainant must prove the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(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.
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.”).
Complainant owns United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) registrations for the UNITED family of marks, including registration for the UNITED CARGO mark. See, e.g., UNITED AIRLINES (Reg. No.1,750,451 registered on Feb. 2, 1993); UNITED CARGO (Reg. No. 2,651,633 registered on Nov. 19, 2002). This was demonstrated by submitting the registrations to the Panel. The USPTO registrations of the marks satisfy Complainant’s required showing under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (determining that the complainant’s trademark registrations with the USPTO for the CHEAPTICKETS and CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks were adequate to establish its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i)).
Complainant argues Respondent’s <united-aircargo.net> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks because it incorporates the entirety of the UNITED CARGO mark and nearly includes the entire UNITED AIRLINES mark by shortening the word “airlines” to the word “air” along with including a hyphen and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Complainant argues the word “air” does not adequately distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s UNITED CARGO mark. Complainant also claims the addition of the gTLD and the hyphen also fail to distinguish the domain name and the mark. The hyphen and gTLD “.net” fail to differentiate the domain name from the registered 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 Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Every domain name must contain a TLD (wehter a gTLD or a ccTLD) by its very required syntax. Therefore, having a TLD does not adeqautely distinguinsh the disputed domain aname from the mark. The addition of the word “air” fails to adequitly distinguish the domain name because describes the airline services Complainant provides under its UNITED CARGO marks. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 206399 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 15, 2003) (finding that the addition of the term “assurance,” to the complainant’s AIG mark failed to sufficiently differentiate the name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the appended term related directly to the complainant’s business). Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s <united-aircargo.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UNITED CARGO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has 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 UDRP ¶ 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 interest 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.”).
Complainant has not granted license, permission, or authorization to Respondent to use any of its marks in a domain name. There is no evidence in the WHOIS information to indicate Respondent is commonly known as the <united-aircargo.net> domain name. The WHOIS information presently lists “HOLLY V SCHILLING” as the registrant of the domain names. Previous panels have concluded that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name when there is no evidence in the record to prove a connection between the registrant and the domain name. See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). This Panel agrees and concludes Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues Respondent is using the <united-aircargo.net> domain name to impersonate Complainant and misdirect Internet traffic from Complainant’s websites to the disputed domain name’s website. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that makes heavy use of Complainant’s UNITED marks, look and feel, and includes a form where Internet users are asked to specify what they are paying for and the cost of their payment. Previous panels have concluded a respondent shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, when the respondent seeks to pass itself off as the complainant. See Kmart of Mich., Inc. v. Cone, FA 655014 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 25, 2006) (The panel found the respondent’s attempt to pass itself of as the complainant was 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) when the respondent used the disputed domain name to present users with a website that was nearly identical to the complainant’s website). The Panel finds Respondent is passing itself off as Complainant and therefore is making neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Complainant also believes Respondent is using the disputed domain name to phish for the personal and financial information of Internet users. Complainant notes an e-mail from a customer who provided their credit card information to Respondent. The e-mail from a concerned Internet user to Complainant explains that the Internet user gave credit card information to Respondent and did not receive the dogs she ordered. Previous panels have found a respondent cannot have a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, when the domain name is being used to phish personal or financial information from consumers. See Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Irelant Ltd., FA 1314998 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2010) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s attempt to “phish” for users’ personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). This Panel concurs and finds Respondent was engaged in phishing. Respondent has made neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Finally, Respondent was using a privacy registration service for the disputed domain name. In a commercial context, Respondent cannot acquire rights to a domain name while using a privacy service for the obvious reasons.
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant argues Respondent is seeking to disrupt Complainant’s business by impersonating Complainant. Complainant has dedicated many of its own employees to investigate Respondent’s alleged scam and deal with Internet users who believed Complainant was the source of the domain name.
Complainant argues Respondent is impersonating Complainant to dupe Internet users to believe they are doing business with Complainant. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that attempts to mimic Complainant’s websites. Previous panels have held a respondent registers and uses a domain name in bad faith when it uses a website virtually identical to Complainant’s to attract Internet users. See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant’s website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). This Panel concurs and finds Respondent’s use of a deceptively similar website to lure Internet users to provide Respondent with their personal financial information is sufficient evidence Respondent has registered and is using the <united-aircargo.net> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant claims Respondent is intentionally diverting Internet users to its <united-aircargo.net> domain name under the perception that Complainant runs the domain name. Complainant claims Respondent is profiting through this confusion. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring Complainant’s logos, trademarks, and photographs of commercial aircraft owned by Complainant. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of Complainant’s marks and other material on its domain name (and in its web site content) adequately demonstrates a bad faith use and registration of the domain name by attracting Internet users to the resolving website for a commercial gain by creating confusion with Complainant’s marks. See MySpace, Inc. v. Myspace Bot, FA 672161 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2006) (holding that the respondent registered and used the <myspacebot.com> domain name in bad faith by diverting Internet users seeking the complainant’s website to its own website for commercial gain because the respondent likely profited from this diversion scheme). Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent has registered and is using the <united-aircargo.net> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant claims Respondent is using the <united-aircargo.net> domain name to phish for the personal and financial information of Internet users by both requesting credit card information on its website, and by e-mailing Internet users to encourage them to provide financial information. Complainant claims Respondent is passing itself off as Complainant. The website contains a form requesting Internet users to provide financial information, while Respondent actively uses the disputed domain name to host e-mail accounts to further solicit financial information from Internet users. Previous panels have concluded it is bad faith use and registration to use a domain name in a phishing scheme. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 19, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was using the <wellsbankupdate.com> domain name in order to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the complainant’s customers). This Panel agrees. Respondent is phishing and thus has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant concludes by arguing Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark. Respondent began using Complainant’s marks immediately after registering the domain name and promptly used a privacy service to shield her registration information. The Panel finds Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and rights and Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nat'l Patent Servs. Inc. v. Bean, FA 1071869 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 1, 2007) ("[C]onstructive notice does not support a finding of bad faith registration."); see also Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Furthermore, registering a domain name under a privacy service in a commercial context raises the rebuttable presumption Respondent registered and uses the dispute domain name in bad faith. Respondent has done nothing to rebut this presumption.
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered the <united-aircargo.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Monday, February 25, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page