DECISION

 

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico

Claim Number: FA2412002129165

PARTIES

Complainant is Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Michael Justus of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico ("Respondent"), Panama.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <gulfstrem.com>, 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.

 

Petter Rindforth as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 12, 2024; Forum received payment on December 12, 2024.

 

On December 12, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <gulfstrem.com> 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 12, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 2, 2025 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@gulfstrem.com. Also on December 12, 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 January 3, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Petter Rindforth 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

The Complainant states that Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the GULFSTREAM trademark in the United States and around the world, covering airplanes and related products and services. Complainant's rights in its GULFSTREAM trademarks predate the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name on November 18, 2024.

 

Complainant and its predecessors have used the well-known GULFSTREAM name and trademark since at least 1959 in connection with airplanes and related products and services. Complainant promotes its GULFSTREAM aircraft and related products and services through a variety of marketing and trade channels, including its own website, trade shows and industry events, third-party websites, social media platforms, print advertising, sponsorships, and film and television placements.

 

Complainant's official website located at the domain name <gulfstream.com> has been registered and used by Complainant in connection with its sale of aircraft and related products and services under its famous GULFSTREAM mark for over 25 years.

 

The disputed domain name is virtually identical to Complainant's GULFSTREAM trademark, only difference by including a slight misspelling of the GULFSTREAM trademark that differs by 1 letter (i.e., "gulfstrem").

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, which is an obvious "typosquatting" of Complainant's GULFSTREAM trademark, which conclusively proves that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the name.

 

Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's GULFSTREAM trademark, and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

Respondent also does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent hosts pay-per-click advertisements for competing aircraft products and services.

 

The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, as it deliberately registered a domain name that is a misspelling of Complainant's GULFSTREAM trademark.  Further, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith because Complainant's GULFSTREAM trademark is a famous mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the following U.S. trademark registrations:

 

No. 1,162,644 GULFSTREAM (word), registered July 28, 1981 for goods in Intl Class 12;

No. 4,295,794 GULFSTREAM (word), registered February 26, 2013 for services in Intl Classes 37, 41 and 42; and

No. 5,280,654 GULFSTREAM (word), registered September 5, 2017 for goods in Intl Class 9.

 

The disputed domain name <gulfstrem.com> was registered on November 18, 2024.

 

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

Complainant claims rights in the GULFSTREAM trademark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,162,644 registered on July 28, 1981). Registration with the USPTO is generally sufficient in demonstrating rights in a trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See H-D Michigan, LLC v. Private Whois Service, FA 1006001328876 (Forum July 12, 2010) (finding that "Complainant has sufficiently registered its HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark with the USPTO to prove Complainant's rights in the mark according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), regardless of the fact that Respondent lives or operates outside the United States."). Therefore, the Panel find that Complainant has rights in the GULFSTREAM trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent's <gulfstrem.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GULFSTREAM trademark. The misspelling of a trademark and the addition of a gTLD is insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant's trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See also Bank of America Corporation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1629452 (Forum Aug. 18, 2015) (finding that the <blankofamerica.com> domain name contains the entire BANK OF AMERICA mark and merely adds the gTLD '.com' and the letter 'l' to create a common misspelling of the word 'bank.'). The disputed domain name misspells the trademark, deleting the letter "a", and adds the generic top-level domain ".com" to form the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel find that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the GULFSTREAM trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (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."); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (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).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <gulfstrem.com> domain name as Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's GULFSTREAM trademark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's trademark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico". Therefore, the Panel find that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

In addition, the Complainant argues that Respondent uses the <gulfstrem.com>  domain name to redirect users to Respondent's competing website, which displays sponsored links to other commercial websites, some of which compete with Complainant. Using a dispute domain name to display hyperlinks competing with and unrelated to a complainant may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant's business). The Panel notes that Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpages of the disputed domain names which displays hyperlinks, some obviously competing with Complainant. The Panel therefore find that Respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that it is highly likely that Respondent was aware of Complainant's rights in its famous GULFSTREAM trademark at the time of Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names. Further, Complainant states that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, as it deliberately registered a domain name that is a misspelling of Complainant's GULFSTREAM trademark.  

 

Here, the Panel notes that Complainant's trademark is well-known, and distinctive, and the disputed domain name an obvious misspelled version of the said trademark, and it is therefore obvious that <gulfstrem.com> is both registered and used in bad faith, with a clear objective to misuse customers of Complainant that by mistake - by a typo – write the online address of Complainant in the wrong way.

 

In addition, use of a domain name to resolve to a page of third-party links can demonstrate a respondent's bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.com Legal, FA1506001622088 (Forum July 10, 2015) ("The use of a domain name's resolving website to host links to competitors of a complainant shows intent to disrupt that complainant's business, thereby showing bad faith in use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).").

 

In addition to the aforesaid, the Panel does not find it too incredible that the Respondent also has registered the domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the trademark in a corresponding domain name, a conclusion based on the fact that the Respondent has been involved (as respondent/holder) in 327 domain name disputes via Forum since 2022.

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

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 <gulfstrem.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Petter Rindforth, Panelist

Dated: January 16, 2025