Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its Subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. k and s corporation
Claim Number: FA1304001492391
Complainant is Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its Subsidiary, Alaska Airlines (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is k and s corporation (“Respondent”), Cayman Islands.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <alasakair.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.), as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 1, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 1, 2013.
On April 1, 2013, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <alasakair.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 April 3, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 23, 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@alasakair.com. Also on April 3, 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 May 1, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.), 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 issues 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.
i. Complainant owns a federal trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the ALASKA AIRLINES mark (Reg. No. 1,561,416 registered Oct. 17, 1989).
ii. Respondent registered the <alasakair.com> domain name on August 30, 2003.
iii. The addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) is irrelevant to the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) confusing similarity comparison.
iv. The disputed domain name differs from Complainant’s mark only by misspelling the word “Alaska” and removing the second portion of the word “airlines.”
i. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, based on the WHOIS information and Complainant’s lack of authorization to use its mark.
ii. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect unsuspecting internet users to a website featuring generic links to third party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant’s services.
i. Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a “click through” website, where it likely receives revenue when misdirected Internet users click on the displayed links. The is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
ii. Respondent’s pay-per-click links promote products that compete with Complainant, which is disruptive of Complainant’s business and evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Respondent is typosquatting, which is itself evidence of bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel finds that the Complainant is entitled to the relief requested.
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.”).
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants
In the instant proceedings, there are two Complainants. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that “[a]ny 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.”
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, in Vancouver Organizing Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games and Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:
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.
The Panel accepts that the uncontested evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, and will treat them all as a single entity. In this decision, the Complainants will be collectively referred to as “Complainant.”
Complainant claims rights in the ALASKA AIRLINES service mark based on its registration of the mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,561,416 registered Oct. 17, 1989). 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.”). Previous panels have found that a complainant need not register its mark in the country of a respondent to demonstrate rights in the mark. 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). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) in the ALASKA AIRLINES mark.
Complainant claims that the <alasakair.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its marks. The Panel finds that the addition of a gTLD such as “.com,” as well as the deletion of the space between the words in Complainant’s mark, is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) confusing similarity comparison. 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 notes that the disputed domain name is nearly identical to its mark. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name simply misspells the word “Alaska” and shortens the word “airlines.” Because past panels have not found the deletion of words or slight misspellings to be sufficient to distinguish a domain name from a mark, the Panel finds that the <alasakair.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALASKA AIR mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See WestJet Air Ctr., Inc. v. W. Jets LLC, FA 96882 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 20, 2001) (finding that the <westjets.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark, where the complainant holds the WEST JET AIR CENTER mark); Valpak Direct Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Manila Indus., Inc., D2006-0714 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2006) (finding the <vallpak.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the VALPAK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Complainant has proven this element.
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); 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 argues that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has therefore not demonstrated rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant notes that the WHOIS information identifies “k and s corporation” as the registrant. Complainant also notes that it is not affiliated with Respondent and has not authorized Respondent to use the ALASKA AIRLINES mark. Previous panels have found nominally unsupportive WHOIS information and a lack of authorization to be strong evidence that a respondent is not commonly known by 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). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not established rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant also notes that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect users to a web page featuring generic links to third-party websites, some of which compete with Complainant’s business. Complainant claims that this demonstrates that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). Because past panels have found that the display of competing hyperlinks on a resolving website does not demonstrate a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name, this Panel also finds that Respondent has not demonstrated rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii). See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (finding that, because the “[r]espondent’s disputed domain names resolve to a website featuring a series of advertising links to various third-parties, many of whom offer products and services in direct competition with those offered under [the complainant’s] mark,” the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant claims that Respondent has set up a “click through” website, containing links that promote products that compete with Complainant’s business. Complainant claims this disrupts its business and is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Previous panels have found the display of competing links to constitute disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (“The disputed domain names resolve to websites that list links to competitors of Complainant, evidence that Respondent intends to disrupt Complainant’s business, a further indication of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant also contends that Respondent likely receives revenue when misdirected Internet users click these links and that Respondent is intentionally using a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALASKA AIRLINES mark in order to attract users to its website. Complainant argues that this demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The Panel agrees that Respondent is trying to profit by attracting users seeking Complainant’s website, and finds that Respondent has demonstrated bad faith registration and use pursuant to 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).
Complainant also describes Respondent’s behavior as typosquatting and claims that this is, in itself, evidence of bad faith. Previous panels have found typosquatting to be evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). The Panel finds that Respondent is engaging in typosquatting, and therefore, finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <alasakair.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 3, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page