Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Mr Bolama / Bolama Technologies Limited
Claim Number: FA1405001560092
Complainant is Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Mr Bolama / Bolama Technologies Limited (“Respondent”), Mauritius.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <alaskaairlinea.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 19, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on May 19, 2014.
On June 2, 2014, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by email to the National Arbitration Forum that the <alaskaairlinea.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.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 June 2, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 23, 2014 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@alaskaairlinea.com. Also on June 2, 2014, 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 June 26, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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
Complainant’s subsidiary Alaska Airlines is a major air carrier, with a route system encompassing more than 92 cities in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Complainant and its subsidiary own the ALASKA AIRLINES trademark, which has been in use since 1942 and was registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 1989. Complainant asserts that its mark enjoys widespread consumer recognition.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <alaskaairlinea.com> is confusingly similar to its ALASKA AIRLINES mark. Complainant characterizes the domain name as a classic example of “typosquatting.” Complainant contends further that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In support thereof, Complainant asserts that Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name, is not sponsored by or legitimately affiliated with Complainant, and has not received permission to use Complainant’s mark. Complainant states that Respondent is using the domain name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring third-party links, some of which compete directly with Complainant, and that Respondent presumably receives pay-per-click fees from these linked websites.
Finally, Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant asserts that Respondent’s typosquatting behavior is itself evidence of bad faith, and argues that Respondent’s use of the domain name to generate revenue with a pay-per-click website, particularly one that includes links to Complainant’s competitors, is further evidence of bad faith. Complainant accuses Respondent of being a recalcitrant, serial cybersquatter, noting that previous UDRP panel decisions reveal a pattern of such behavior.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and has been 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 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.”).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s registered mark ALASKA AIRLINES, with the addition of a letter “a” and the “.com” top-level domain. These changes are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., Alaska Air Group, Inc. v. Anunet Pvt Ltd / Jyoti Mehta, FA 1481995 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 11, 2013) (finding <alaskaaairlines.com> confusingly similar to ALASKA AIRLINES); AIDA Cruises - German Branch of Costa Crociere S.p.A. v. Wendy Webbe, D2011-1878 (WIPO Dec. 27, 2011) (finding <aidaa.net> confusingly similar to AIDA); Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. James Frank, FA 1382633 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2011) (finding <blackstonea.com> confusingly similar to BLACKSTONE); Cabela's, Inc. v. Rodrique Calasbo, FA 1301888 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 2, 2010) (finding <cabelasa.com> confusingly similar to CABELA’S). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates a typographical variation of Complainant’s mark without authorization, and apparently its sole use has been for a website that displays pay-per-click advertising keyed to Complainant’s mark. Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that the domain name was registered “in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in
a corresponding domain name, provided that [Respondent] ha[s] engaged in
a pattern of such conduct.” Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name “primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.” Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that “by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s] web site 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 [Respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent’s] web site or location.”
Respondent’s registration of a domain name that incorporates Complainant’s mark, with the introduction of a typographical error, together with the use of the domain name to link to commercial websites that compete with Complainant, is indicative of bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See, e.g., Staples, Inc. v. Net Manager / Xwings Domains, FA 1557019 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2014). Respondent’s pattern of registering domain names that infringe other trademarks provides further evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(ii). See id. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <alaskaairlinea.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: June 26, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page