Textron Aviation Inc. v. Southwestern Aero Exchange

Claim Number: FA2404002094083



Complainant is Textron Aviation Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jeremiah A. Pastrick, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Southwestern Aero Exchange ("Respondent"), Oklahoma, USA.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with Network Solutions, 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.


Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 19, 2024; Forum received payment on April 19, 2024.


On April 23, 2024, Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <> domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 23, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of May 13, 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 Also on April 23, 2024, 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 May 14, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 a Response from Respondent.



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



A. Complainant

Complainant manufactures and sells airplanes and airplane parts. It has rights in the BEECHCRAFT mark based upon its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). The <> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it fully incorporates BEECH, a common abbreviation of the BEECHCRAFT mark, and adds the descriptive term "twin," the number 18 and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com."


Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. It is not commonly known by the domain name, Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark, and Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use but instead uses it to attract internet users to its own website where it appears to sell parts of unknown provenance for Complainant's Beechcraft 18 airplanes.


Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. It registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the BEECHCRAFT mark, it is using the domain name to disrupt Complainant's business and attempts to attract Internet users to its website by causing confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship affiliation or endorsement of its website.


B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response 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 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 a Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:


(1)       the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(2)       the 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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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 as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. 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). Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. 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"), WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), at ¶ 4.3 ("In cases involving wholly unsupported and conclusory allegations advanced by the complainant, . . . panels may find thatdespite a respondent's defaulta complainant has failed to prove its case.").


The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:


Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant alleges that it is the owner of several USPTO registrations of the BEECHCRAFT mark. In support, it submitted a number of TSDR printouts showing that the BEECHCRAFT mark is indeed registered with the USPTO, but none of these printouts lists the current owner of these marks. On May 14, 2024 the Panel issued a Rule 12 Request to the Complainant to submit evidence of its ownership of these registrations, but Complainant did not respond within the time allowed.


There being no evidence of the ownership of the relevant mark, Complainant has failed to meet the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Accordingly, the relief requested in the Complaint must be denied.



Complainant having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> domain name REMAIN WITH RESPONDENT.




Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

May 21, 2024




Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page