DECISION

 

AAR Corp. v. Allen Joe

Claim Number: FA2312002075670

 

PARTIES

Complainant is AAR Corp. ("Complainant"), represented by Alexis Degler of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Allen Joe ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <aarcorps.net>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 18, 2023; Forum received payment on December 18, 2023.

 

On December 18, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <aarcorps.net> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 December 20, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 9, 2024 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@aarcorps.net. Also on December 20, 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 January 11, 2024, 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 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, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows:

 

Complainant AAR is an independent provider of aviation services to commercial and government customers worldwide. Complainant markets and sells the AAR Products and Services under the AAR Marks throughout the United States and worldwide through its website.

 

Complainant has rights in the AAR, AARCORP.COM and AAR related marks though registration with the USPTO as well as through multiple other national registrations worldwide.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's AAR trademarks as the trademarks are included in the <aarcorps.net> domain name.

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent has never been known by AAR or a variation thereof; isn't affiliated with or authorized to use Complainant's trademarks; and has not used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent had constructive or actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark prior to registering the <aarcorps.net> domain name. Respondent registered the domain name to deceive consumers as to the source of Respondent's website thereby disrupting Complainant's business. Respondent used the at-issue domain name to host email in furtherance of a phishing scam.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in AAR and related marks.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the AAR trademarks.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain to host an email address in the furtherance of fraud.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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(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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant demonstrates rights in the AAR mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of AAR with multiple trademark agencies around the world, including the USPTO. See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) ("Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world."); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Jimmy Yau, FA 1764034 (Forum Jan. 25, 2018) ("The Panel finds that complainant has rights in BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including the USPTO."). 

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name contains Complainant's AAR trademark followed by the term "corps" with all followed by the Policy ¶ 4(a)i) irrelevant ".net" top-level. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's AAR mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's AAR trademark. See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Note that the Panel recognizes that the at-issue domain name may also be characterized as being confusingly similar to other ARR related trademarks held by Complainant e.g. AARCORPS.COM.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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, 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 Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).

 

The WHOIS information for <aarcorps.net> ultimately identifies the domain name's registrant as "Allen Joe" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <aarcorps.net> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <aarcorps.net> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See H-D U.S.A., LLC, v. ilyas Aslan / uok / Domain Admin  ContactID 5645550 / FBS INC / Whoisprotection biz, FA 1785313 (Forum June 25, 2018) ("The publicly available WHOIS information identifies Respondent as 'Ilyas Aslan' and so there is no prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by either of the [<harleybot.bid> and <harleybot.com>] domain names.").

 

Respondent's <aarcorps.net> domain name is used to host email pretending to be from one of Complainant's employees. Such use of the <aarcorps.net> domain name indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).

 

Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent's lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive there is evidence from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

First and as mentioned above, Respondent used the at-issue domain name in connection with an email based scheme to swindle third parties. To wit, Respondent sent emails from <aarcorps.net> that pretend to be initiated by one of Complainant's employees so as to create the illusion that the recipient was communicating with Complainant. Respondent cloaked as Complainant then cajoled the email recipient in an attempt to deceive the recipient into submitting payment amounts supposedly owed Complainant to Respondent's account. Respondent's use of the domain name to afford a confusingly similar email address in furtherance of fraud shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the <aarcorps.net> domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) ("Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant's CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)"); see also Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails supported a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the AAR mark when it registered <aarcorps.net> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's trademarks and from Respondent's use of the domain name to pose as Complainant as part of its scheme to swindle third-party associates of Complainant. Respondent's registration and use of <aarcorps.net> with knowledge of Complainant's rights in such domain name further shows Respondent's bad faith pursuant to 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).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <aarcorps.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: January 10, 2024