American Airlines, Inc. v. Puranlal Patel
Claim Number: FA2303002034760
Complainant is American Airlines, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Marc Trachtenberg of Greenberg Traurig LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Puranlal Patel (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <americanairline.us>, registered with Sav.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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 7, 2023; Forum received payment on March 7, 2023.
On March 7, 2023, Sav.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <americanairline.us> domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sav.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sav.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On March 7, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 27, 2023 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@americanairline.us. Also on March 7, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 31, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for usTLD 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 usTLD Policy, usTLD Rules, 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 contends as follows:
Complainant is the second largest air carrier in the world.
Complainant has rights in the AMERICAN AIRLINES mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <americanairline.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the AMERICAN AIRLINES mark in its entirety and merely deletes the letter “s” and adds the “.us” country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”).
Respondent has no legitimate interests in the <americanairline.us> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the AMERICAN AIRLINES mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the domain name addresses an inactive webpage.
Respondent registered and uses the <americanairline.us> domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s at-issue domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. Respondent can use the at-issue domain name in to send fraudulent email. Finally, Respondent registered the <americanairline.us> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AMERICAN AIRLINES mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the AMERICAN AIRLINES trademark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the AMERICAN AIRLINES trademark.
Respondent holds the at-issue domain name passively.
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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Respondent’s <americanairline.us> domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO registration of AMERICAN AIRLINES is sufficient to established Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”).
The at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s AMERICAN AIRLINES trademark less its space and “s” with all followed by the “.us” top-level domain name. The differences between <americanairline.us> and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <americanairline.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMERICAN AIRLINES mark. See Research Now Group, Inc. v. Pan Jing, FA 1735345 (Forum July 14, 2017) (“The … elimination of spacing [is] considered irrelevant when distinguishing between a mark and a domain name.”); see also, M ShipCarsNow, Inc. v. Wet Web Design LLC, FA 1601260 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) (establishing a confusing similarity between the <shipcarnow.com> domain name and the SHIPCARSNOW mark because the domain name simply removes the letter “s”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
The WHOIS information for <americanairline.us> shows that “Purantal Patel” is its registrant and there is no evidence in the record indicating that Respondent is otherwise known by the <americanairline.us> domain name. Given the foregoing, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (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).
Respondent holds the at-issue domain name passively. Browsing to the domain name returns a blank page. Respondent’s use of the domain name is thus not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). See Activision Blizzard, Inc. / Activision Publishing, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Cimpress Schweiz GmbH, FA 1737429 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (“Complainant insists that Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name. When Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with an active website, the Panel may find that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services… As Respondent has not provided a response to this action, Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain.”)
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
As discussed below without being exhaustive, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the <americanairline.us> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent passively holds the at-issue confusingly similar domain name. Respondent’s failure to actively use <americanairline.us> indicates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of such domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AMERICAN AIRLINES mark when it registered <americanairline.us> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident given the long established worldwide notoriety of Complainant and its trademark. Respondent’s registration of <americanairline.us> with knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights in AMERICAN AIRLINES further demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <americanairline.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: April 3, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page