Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft
Claim Number: FA1405001560109
Complainant is Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft (“Respondent”), St. Vincent/Grenadines.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <alaskaairkines.com>, <alasksairlines.com>, and <laskaair.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.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC 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 May 20, 2014, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <alaskaairkines.com>, <alasksairlines.com>, and <laskaair.com> domain names are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 May 28, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 17, 2014 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@alaskaairkines.com, postmaster@alasksairlines.com, and postmaster@laskaair.com. Also on May 28, 2014, 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 23, 2014 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC 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.
A. Complainant
Complainant made the following contentions
1. Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
a. Complainant owns the ALASKA AIRLINES mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 1,561,416 registered October 17, 1989).
b. Complainant uses the ALASKA AIRLINES mark in connection with air transportation services.
c. Complainant promotes its operation online through use of the domain names <alaskaairlines.com> and <alaskair.com>.
d. The <alaskaairkines.com>, <alasksairlines.com>, and <laskaair.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALASKA AIRLINES mark. The <alaskaairkines.com>, <alasksairlines.com> disputed domain names differ from the mark by a single letter. The <laskaair.com> domain name removes the first “a” from Alaska as well as “lines” from airlines.
2. Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
a. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the mark at issue.
b. Respondent is neither making a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. Specifically, Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to websites that feature third-party links, some of which compete with Complainant in the airline industry, and even promote Complainant’s own website. Presumably, Respondent generates click-through revenue from the linked pages.
c. Respondent’s typosquatting behavior is further indication that it lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
3. Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
a. Respondent has listed the <alasksairlines.com>, and <laskaair.com> disputed domain names for sale.
b. Respondent has a pattern of bad faith registration and use. This pattern, as demonstrated by prior UDRP decisions against Respondent, evinces Respondent’s bad faith in the instant matter.
c. Respondent’s bad faith is demonstrated by the use of the disputed domain names in connection with websites promoting products that compete with Complainant in the aviation field. Such use disrupts Complainant’s own operations as potential customers are diverted.
d. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to attract and mislead Internet users and seeks to profit from the resulting confusion. Namely, Respondent likely gains click-through revenue from the linked pages.
e. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark as demonstrated by Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to include links to players in the airlines industry as well as references to Complainant itself.
f. Respondent’s typosquatting is further evidence of bad faith.
B.Respondent:
Respondent failed to submit a response in this proceeding.
1. Complainant is a United States company engaged in the field of air transportation services.
2. Complainant owns the ALASKA AIRLINES mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 1,561,416 registered October 17, 1989).
3. The disputed domain names have the following registration dates :< alaskaairkines.com> registered June 7, 2008 ;<alasksairlines.com> registered October 3, 2005; and <laskaair.com> registered September 12, 2003.
4. Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to websites that feature third-party links, some of which compete with Complainant in the airline industry, and promote Complainant’s own website.
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 its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines. Complainant contends that Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide air travel services in the United States, Canada, and Mexico under the ALASKA AIRLINES mark.
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 Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & 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.
In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., 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. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark. But see AmeriSource Corp. v. Park, FA 99134 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 5, 2001) (“This Panel finds it difficult to hold that a domain name that may belong to AmerisourceBergen Corporation (i.e., the subject Domain Names) should belong to AmeriSource Corporation because they are affiliated companies.”).
As the Panel accepts that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, it will treat them all as a single entity in this proceeding.
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 first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark. Complainant claims to own the ALASKA AIRLINES mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 1,561,416 registered October 17, 1989). Complainant uses the ALASKA AIRLINES mark in connection with air transportation services and promotes its operation online through use of the domain names <alaskaairlines.com> and <alaskair.com>. The Panel observes that the WHOIS record indicates that Respondent resides in St. Vincent/Grenadines. Previous panels have found USPTO registrations sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) regardless of whether the respondent resides in the United States. See W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 24, 2010) (stating that “the Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.”). Accordingly, the Panel determines that Complainant’s USPTO registration of the ALASKA AIRLINES mark establishes rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALASKA AIRLINES trademark. Complainant argues that the <alaskaairkines.com>, <alasksairlines.com>, and <laskaair.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALASKA AIRLINES mark. Complainant urges that the disputed domain names differ from the mark by a single letter, and that the inclusion of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) is irrelevant. The Panel observes that this is true of the <alaskaairkines.com> and <alasksairlines.com>, but that the <laskaair.com> domain name removes the first “a” from Alaska as well as “lines” from airlines. The Panel also notes that the disputed domain names eliminate the spacing between the two-word mark. It is Complainant’s position that such alterations are insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from the utilized mark. Previous panels agree. Notably, previous panels have held that the inclusion of a gTLD and elimination of spacing is irrelevant to the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See U.S. News & World Report, Inc. v. Zhongqi, FA 917070 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (“Elimination of punctuation and the space between the words of Complainant’s mark, as well as the addition of a gTLD does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Further, panels have found that minor spelling errors, especially where the mark is changed by a single letter, fail to negate confusing similarty. See Royal Bank of Scotland Grp. plc et al. v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (“The Panel finds that merely by misspelling Complainants’ mark, Respondent has not sufficiently differentiated the <privelage.com> domain name from the PRIVILEGE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Guinness UDV N. Am., Inc. v. Dallas Internet Servs., D2001-1055 (WIPO Dec. 12, 2001) (finding the <smirnof.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s SMIRNOFF mark because merely removing the letter “f” from the mark was insignificant). Further, with respect to the <laskaair.com> domain name, previous panels have held that the deletion of a part of the mark may not negate confusing similarity. Notable here, the panel in Delta Corp. Identity, Inc. v. Seventh Summit Ventures, FA 0106221 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 6, 2002) stated, “the [<deltaair.com>] disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELTA AIR LINES mark, because the disputed domain name merely drops the word “lines” from the mark.” Consistent with previous decisions, the Panel agrees that the alterations made to the ALASKA AIRLINES mark in forming the <alaskaairkines.com>, <alasksairlines.com>, and <laskaair.com> domain names are insufficient to distinguish the names from the incorporated mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
It is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names 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.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations:
(a)Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s ALASKA AIRLINES trademark and to use it in its domain names, making only minor spelling alterations;
(b) Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to websites that feature third-party links, some of which compete with Complainant in the airline industry, and promote Complainant’s own website;
(c) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant;
(d)Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Further, Complainant contends that it has not authorized Respondent to use the mark at issue. In IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) the panel found that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name because the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name. At present, the circumstances are comparable. The Panel notes that Respondent has failed to submit a response, and therefore has not refuted Complainant’s contentions. Further, the Panel observes that the WHOIS record indicates “Domain Admin
/ Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft” as the registrant of the disputed domain names. In light of the available evidence in the record as well as Respondent’s failure to show otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);
(e)Regarding use of the dispute domain names, Complainant argues that Respondent is neither making a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. Specifically, Complainant urges that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to websites that feature third-party links, some of which compete with Complainant in the airline industry, and even promote Complainant’s own website. See Complainant’s Ex. H. Complainant presumes that Respondent generates click-through revenue from the linked pages. The Panel notes that the screenshots provided by Complainant in Exhibit H show the disputed domain names promote links such as “Alaska Airlines,” “Airline Reservations,” “Discount Airline Tickets,” and “Cheap Alaska Vacations.” In United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Savchenko, FA 1105728 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 12, 2007) the panel reasoned, “[t]he disputed domain name, <usaa-insurance.net>, currently resolves to a website displaying Complainant’s marks and contains links to Complainant’s competitors. The Panel finds this to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”). As each of the disputed domain names resolves to a page promoting links that compete with Complainant in the airline industry, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii);
(e)Complainant contends that Respondent’s typosquatting behavior is further indication that it lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Previous panels have found that intentional misspellings of a complainant’s mark evidence that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it “engaged in the practice of typosquatting by taking advantage of Internet users who attempt to access Complainant's <indymac.com> website but mistakenly misspell Complainant's mark by typing the letter ‘x’ instead of the letter ‘c’”). For comparison, the Panel recalls that the disputed domain names include <alaskaairkines.com>, <alasksairlines.com>, and <laskaair.com> and that Complainant promotes its operation online through use of the domain names <alaskaairlines.com> and <alaskair.com>. As the Panel agrees that Respondent’s behavior amounts to typosquatting, the Panel uses evidence of Respondent’s typosquatting to further demonstrate Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and have been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons.
First, Complainant argues that Respondent has listed the <alasksairlines.com> and <laskaair.com> disputed domain names for sale, which demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith. The Panel notes that Complainant has included screenshots showing that the <alasksairlines.com> and <laskaair.com> domain names are for sale at $1,263 and $593, respectively. See Complainant’s Ex. I. Previous panels have found evidence of bad faith in comparable circumstances. See CBS Broad. Inc. v. Worldwide Webs, Inc., D2000-0834 (WIPO Sept. 4, 2000) (“There is nothing inherently wrongful in the offer or sale of domain names, without more, such as to justify a finding of bad faith under the Policy. However, the fact that domain name registrants may legitimately and in good faith sell domain names does not imply a right in such registrants to sell domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks of others without their consent”); see also George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (concluding that the respondent registered and was using the <gwbakeries.mobi> domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) where it offered it for sale for far more than its estimated out-of-pocket costs it incurred in initially registering the disputed domain name). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent’s willingness to sell the <alasksairlines.com> and <laskaair.com> disputed domain names demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
Secondly, Complainant argues that Respondent has a pattern of bad faith registration and use. The Panel observes that Complainant has cited and provided cases where previous panels found evidence of Respondent’s bad faith. See Complainant’s Ex. N, including Tumblr, Inc. v. Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft, FA 1543393 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 12, 2014); The Gap Inc. v. Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft / Domain Admin, FA 1541856 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 14, 2014); Univision Communications Inc. v. Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft, FA 1536966 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 28, 2014). Previous panels have used evidence of prior UDRP decision against a respondent as evidence of bad faith in the current proceeding. Because Complainant has provided evidence of prior bad faith, the Panel uses the prior adverse decision to inform its determination of bad faith in the present matter and finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Thirdly, Complainant contends that Respondent’s bad faith is demonstrated by the use of the disputed domain names in connection with websites promoting products that compete with Complainant in the aviation field. Complainant urges that such use disrupts Complainant’s own operations as potential customers are diverted. The Panel recalls that Complainant has provided screenshots of the disputed landing pages in Exhibit H, and that the pages promote links related to the airline field in which Complainant operates. As such, the Panel finds evidence of bad faith disruption pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assoc., FA 914854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (holding that where the respondent’s website featured hyperlinks to competing websites and included a link to the complainant’s website, the respondent’s use of the <redeemaamiles.com> domain name constituted disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Fourthly, Complainant contends that Respondent uses the disputed domain names to attract and mislead Internet users and seeks to profit from the resulting confusion. Complainant asserts that Respondent likely gains click-through revenue from the linked pages. Again, the Panel recalls Complainant’s Ex. H, which depicts the landing pages and promoted links at issue. Previous panels have found evidence of bad faith where the disputed domain name resolves to a page promoting links that appear to compete with Complainant in their field, and Respondent likely profits from the promote links. Notable here, the panel in Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) stated, “Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).” Consistent with past decisions, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Fifthly, Complainant contends that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark as demonstrated by Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to include links to players in the airlines industry as well as references to Complainant itself. The Panel recalls that all three disputed domain names resolved to pages promoting links to Complainant’s own domain names, accurately spelled. See Complainant’s Ex. H. While previous panels have determined that constructive knowledge is insufficient to support a finding of bad faith, the Panel infers that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ALASKA AIRELINES mark given the use of the mark on the disputed landing pages; and therefore find evidence of bad faith registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”).
Sixthly, Complainant argues that Respondent’s typosquatting is further evidence of bad faith. Previous panels have found that typosquatting exists when a domain name merely embodies common spelling errors that Internet users may make when pursuing the complainant’s business on the Internet. See Zone Labs, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 190613 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (“Respondent’s registration and use of [the <zonelarm.com> domain name] that capitalizes on the typographical error of an Internet user is considered typosquatting. Typosquatting, itself is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). As the Panel agrees that the <alaskaairkines.com>, <alasksairlines.com>, and <laskaair.com> domain names amount to typosquatting, the Panel finds further evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, in addition and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names using the ALASKA AIRLINES mark and in view of the conduct that Respondent has engaged in when using them, Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <alaskaairkines.com>, <alasksairlines.com>, and <laskaair.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC
Panelist
Dated: June 27, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page