Alaska Air Group, Inc., and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Anunet Pvt Ltd / Jyoti Mehta
Claim Number: FA1301001481995
Complainant is Alaska Air Group, Inc., and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Anunet Pvt Ltd / Jyoti Mehta (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <alaskaairlimes.com> and <alaskaaairlines.com>, registered with Bizcn.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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 25, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on January 25, 2013.
On January 28, 2013, Bizcn.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <alaskaairlimes.com> and <alaskaaairlines.com> domain names are registered with Bizcn.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Bizcn.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Bizcn.com, Inc. 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 28, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 19, 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@alaskaairlimes.com and postmaster@alaskaaairlines.com. Also on January 28, 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 26, 2013 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants
The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and the National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e). UDRP Rule 3(a) states, “Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
There are two Complainants in this matter: Alaska Air Group, Inc., and Alaska Airlines. Complainant argues that Alaska Airlines is a subsidiary of Alaska Air Group, Inc., and both entities own the ALASKA AIRLINES mark through federal trademark registration, and both extensively and continuously use the mark in connection with air transportation services and travel.
Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example see Vancouver Organizing Comm. for the 2010 Olympic & Paralymic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 12, 2006)(It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.); see also Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Investments, Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2003) (the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names.).
The Panel finds that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish an acceptable nexus or link between the Complainants, and treats them as a single entity in this proceeding. The Complainants will hereafter be collectively referred to as “Complainant” throughout this decision.
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is Alaska Air Group Inc., and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines who list their address as Seattle, WA, USA. Complainant owns and operates airline locations throughout the USA and Mexico. Complainant also owns the USA registered family of ALASKA AIR marks dating back to 1989 and conducts business on the internet at its official website located at <alaskaairlines.com>.
Respondent is Anunet Pvt Ltd/Jyoti Mehta who list its address as New Delhi, India. Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as Xiamen Fujian China. The Respondent registered the disputed domain names on July 22, 2004.
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
(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 claims rights in the ALASKA AIRLINES trademark. Complainant’s claim is based on its registration of the mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,561,416 registered Oct. 17, 1989). See Complainant Exhibit E. Previous panels have found that a complainant’s registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to confer rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations [with the USPTO] establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”). The Panel notes that prior cases have also held that a complainant does not need to own a trademark registration in the country of a respondent in order to establish rights in its mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates and it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction). The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the ALASKA AIRLINES mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), Complainant claims that Respondent’s <alaskaairlimes.com> and <alaskaaairlines.com> disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALASKA AIRLINES trademark. Complainant asserts that the addition of the gTLD “.com” is irrelevant to the confusing similarity analysis. The Panel finds that the addition of the gTLD “.com” is disregarded in determining whether the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). The Panel also notes that the disputed domain names eliminate the space between the words in Complainant’s trademark. The Panel finds that the deletion of the space does not distinguish the disputed domain names. 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.”).
Complainant points out that the disputed domain names differ from Complainant’s mark by a single letter. In the case of <alaskaairlimes.com>, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name merely changes the letter “n” to “m.” The Panel recognizes that past panels have found such a slight misspelling inadequate to distinguish a domain name from a mark. See Belkin Components v. Gallant, FA 97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2001) (finding the <belken.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's BELKIN mark because the name merely replaced the letter “i” in the complainant's mark with the letter “e”). In regards to <alaskaaairlines.com>, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name inserts an additional letter “a.” The Panel further recognizes that previous panels have also found that the addition of a single letter does not defeat a finding of confusing similarity. See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (“The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant’s mark does not remove the respondent’s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel finds that the <alaskaairlimes.com> and <alaskaaairlines.com> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALASKA AIRLINES mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Complainant has proven this element.
The Panel recognizes that 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 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). The Complainant has met this burden.
Complainant argues that, under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant claims that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and that Respondent has no affiliation or authorization from Complainant to use the ALASKA AIRLINES mark. The Panel notes that the WHOIS records indicate the registrant is named “Anunet Pvt Ltd / Jyoti Mehta” and that past panels have found unsupportive WHOIS information to be strong evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and does not have rights or legitimate interests in them under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Because the Respondent has not provided a response to this action the Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain.
The Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant claims that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Complainant argues that Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of bad faith behavior, with multiple UDRP proceedings that have resulted in findings of bad faith and transfer. See, e.g., Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Anunet Pvt Ltd / Jyoti Mehta, FA 1406441 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 26, 2011); Benchmark Brands, Inc. v. Anunet Pvt Ltd c/o Jyoti Mehta, FA 1331154 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 23, 2010); Int’l Bancshares Corp. v. Anunet Pvt Ltd c/o Jyoti Mehta, FA 1295978 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 14, 2010). The Panel finds that Respondent’s history provides evidence of a pattern of bad faith in regard to the registration and use of the <alaskaairlimes.com> and <alaskaaairlines.com> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See TRAVELOCITY.COM LP v. Aziz, FA 1260783 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 16, 2009) (“These previous [UDRP] decisions demonstrate a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”).
Complainant also argues that Respondent is using the <alaskaairlimes.com> and <alaskaaairlines.com> domain names to disrupt Complainant’s business as a competitor, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Complainant indicates that the links on both disputed domain names’ resolving websites promote products that compete with Complainant, including <china-airlines.com> and <CheapOair.com>. See Complainant Exhibit H. The Panel notes that previous panels have found the display of competing hyperlinks to be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Univ. of Texas Sys. v. Smith, FA 1195696 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2008) (finding that using the resolving website to divert Internet users to the complainant’s competitors constituted bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) given their intended disruption to Complainant’s business.
Complainant also contends that Respondent is using both disputed domain names to resolve to “click through” websites for which it likely receives revenue for clicks accrued by misdirected Internet users. Complainant considers this an intentional attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark, thus demonstrating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The Panel finds these actions to be further evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).
Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent is typosquatting – seeking to intercept web traffic by preying on typing errors when users are seeking Complainant’s mark. The Panel notes that past panels have found typosquatting to be evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Nextel Commc’ns Inc. v. Geer, FA 477183 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 15, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the <nextell.com> domain name was in bad faith because the domain name epitomized typosquatting in its purest form). The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names is typosquatting, and thus supports the claim that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Complainant has proven this element.
Because the Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <alaskaairlimes.com> and <alaskaaairlines.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: March 11, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page