DECISION
Textron Innovations Inc. v. Kevin Carson / King Air Academy
Claim Number: FA2503002147185
PARTIES
Complainant is Textron Innovations Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jeremiah A. Pastrick of Pastrick Law LLC, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Kevin Carson / King Air Academy ("Respondent"), represented by Mark R. Bagley of Tolpin & Partners, PC, Illinois, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <kingairacademy.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
PANEL
The undersigned certify that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelists in this proceeding.
Nicholas J.T. Smith and Steven M. Levy as Panelists and Alan L. Limbury as Chair.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 27, 2025. Forum received payment on March 27, 2025.
On March 27, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <kingairacademy.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 March 31, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 25, 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@kingairacademy.com. Also on March 31, 2025, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 25, 2025.
On May 12, 2025, Complainant submitted a Supplemental Filing to Forum.
On May 12, 2025, pursuant to Respondent's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith and Steven M. Levy as Panelists and Alan L. Limbury as Chair.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Preliminary Issue: Complainant's Supplemental Filing
Under paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules and Rule 7 of Forum's Supplemental Rules the Panel, in its sole discretion, may determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence, insofar as both parties are treated with equality and are given a fair opportunity to present their case.
Unsolicited supplemental filings are generally discouraged. A party is usually required to prove that the supplemental filing is important and that the additional evidence and arguments were not available when it filed its initial Complaint or Response. In the present case, the Panel finds that Complainant's additional submission does add some information, by way of reply to the Response, about the training that it organizes, affecting the Panel's decision.
Therefore, the Panel accepts the supplemental filing and, in light of its findings below, considers it unnecessary to invite a reply from Respondent.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant, Textron Innovations Inc., is the owner of the KING AIR mark that it licenses exclusively to its affiliate Textron Aviation Inc., the general aviation business unit of the conglomerate Textron that was formed in March 2014 following the acquisition of Beech Holdings, the maker of the King Air line of aircraft.
The domain name <kingairacademy.com> is confusingly similar/identical to Complainant's registered KING AIR mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <kingairacademy.com> domain name. Given that Respondent used a third-party domain registration proxy service to hide its identity, no available evidence suggests that Respondent is commonly known as King Air Academy. Complainant has not licensed nor otherwise permitted any organization, except its affiliate Textron Aviation Inc., to utilize its KING AIR mark in connection with any goods or services similar to those provided by Respondent. Nor has Complainant authorized any entity, even its authorized training partners and service facilities, to own any domain names incorporating the KING AIR mark.
Respondent registered and uses the <kingairacademy.com> domain name for the obvious purpose of falsely suggesting sponsorship or endorsement by Complainant. Utilizing a Complainant's trademark in a domain name that competes directly with Complainant's business and/or creates a suggestion of endorsement or affiliation does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate non-commercial fair use.
Complainant lays out the basics of how flight training and pilot licensure works in the U.S. – at least with respect to obtaining a private pilot's license (a "PPL"). Respondent's services do compete directly with Complainant and/or Complainant's authorized providers of its products and services. Respondent utilizes Complainant's KING AIR mark to compete directly with Complainant's legitimate training and simulator services offered through its network of authorized training partners.
Given the rationale articulated in cases like Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America, Inc. v. Advantage S & G Inc., FA1006001329762 (Forum July 22, 2010) and Sub-Zero, Inc. v. Appliance Service Co., FA2501002135216 (Forum February 9, 2025) the factors articulated in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc. D2001-0903 (WIPO, November 6, 2001) do not apply or provide relief to Respondent in this case.
Respondent both registered and is using the <kingairacademy.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4b(iv).
Due to its relevance and applicability both in the similarity of the fact patterns as well as the trademark at issue, Complainant advocates to the Panel to follow a similar line of reasoning and draw similar conclusions on the issue of bad faith registration and use to those of the panelist in Textron Innovations Inc. v. Nicole Delger / Nicole Delger Communications, FA2409002115783 (Forum October 21, 2024).
B. Respondent
The Complaint misdescribes and apparently misunderstands the nature of Respondent King Air Academy's pilot training services and the market for those services. As a result, Complainant erroneously asserts that Respondent competes with Complainant and fails to recognize how Respondent's business name and the <kingairacademy.com> domain name actually represent nominative fair uses of Complainant's KING AIR trademark.
The Complaint misleadingly omits the long period of interaction and cooperation between Complainant and Respondent which indicated that Complainant has acquiesced to and had no problem with Respondent's business name or domain name. Complainant has no plausible grounds for appropriating to itself the disputed domain name under the UDRP.
KING AIR is the brand name of a specific line of twin-engine turboprop airplanes which have been manufactured since 1964 and are still being manufactured today. There are so many King Air aircraft in active use that their owners have come to see themselves as the King Air community, and there is even an independently published King Air Magazine directed at that community.
Respondent King Air Academy was established in 2012 for the sole purpose of offering insurance-mandated model-specific training on the Beechcraft King Air aircraft. "Insurance-mandated" training refers to pilot training which is focused on a particular type or model of aircraft and is above and beyond what the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") requires for a PPL or continued licensure. This type of aircraft-specific training is often required by insurance companies, even though it is not required by the FAA itself. A wide variety of companies offer this kind of training for many different types of aircraft in use today.
Respondent has been operating under the name King Air Academy and offering two categories of insurance-mandated training, Initial Training and Recurrent Training, since its founding in 2012. In late 2013, Respondent registered the <kingairacademy.com> domain name and shortly thereafter published a website at "www.kingairacademy.com".
The Complaint describes the process and requirements for obtaining a U.S. PPL as regulated by the FAA. However, Respondent does not offer training for or issue PPLs or any other ratings defined or required by the FAA. The market basis for Respondent's business, and why it uses the term "King Air" nominatively, is the fact that insurance companies, not the FAA, require model-specific pilot training as a requirement of coverage. Respondent provides that model-specific training for King Air aircraft, and only for King Air aircraft.
Complainant's assertion that "Respondent's services do compete directly with Complainant and/or Complainant's authorized providers of these products or services" is deeply misleading and unsupported by the evidence. Even assuming that "Complainant" encompasses all of Textron Inc., the Complaint offers no evidence, and Respondent can locate no evidence, that Textron actually offers any training services to pilots. Textron, across all of its sub-businesses, is essentially a product manufacturer, and the KING AIR U.S. Trademark Registration upon which it relies is only for use with "airplanes and parts thereof," not any services.
None of the Complainant's evidence suggests that Complainant, or Textron Inc., competes with Respondent in any meaningful way.
Perhaps the most glaring omission from the Complaint is any recognition of how, over the years of Respondent's existence, Textron and its executives have worked with Respondent and financially and otherwise supported Respondent's efforts to benefit the King Air community. In 2017, Respondent and its manager Kevin Carson in particular, was the organizing force behind the first "King Air Gathering," a fly-in conference for owners and pilots of King Air aircraft. The King Air Academy logo was on the conference materials, and the Textron Manager of Technical Support for Turboprops was one of the speakers at the conference.
That King Air Gathering was in April of 2017, and a second Gathering, again organized by Respondent, was held that September. Textron was a "Platinum Sponsor" of that Gathering, and speakers included the Textron Manager of Technical Support for Turboprops and the Textron Product Marketing Manager.
Respondent and Kevin Carson also organized King Air Gatherings in September 2018, September 2019, and May 2022, with planned Gatherings in 2020 and 2021 cancelled due to COVID. Textron was a Platinum Sponsor at each of the 2018, 2019, and 2022 Gatherings, with the Textron Customer Service Manager speaking in 2018 and 2019. Before the 2020 Gathering was cancelled due to COVID, it was planned to be at Textron's facility in Wichita, Kansas, and Kevin Carson communicated extensively with Textron employees to plan for it.
In 2021, Textron invited Mr. Carson to participate in a videotaped safety roundtable session at the Textron headquarters in Wichita, Kansas. Mr. Carson agreed, and that video was shown at the Textron Customer Conference on May 4, 2021.
Through all the years that Complainant worked with Respondent and Kevin Carson, sponsored the King Air Gatherings that Respondent organized, had booths at the Gatherings, and sent employees to speak at the Gatherings, no employee of Complainant ever objected to Respondent's use of the term "King Air" in its business name, logo, or the <kingairacademy.com> domain name. Although Respondent and Mr. Carson passed organizing and hosting duties of King Air Gatherings to another organization starting in 2023, Mr. Carson has attended and emceed for every King Air Gathering, and Respondent sponsored and sent featured speakers to each of the Gatherings in 2023, 2024, and 2025.
Even at the March 19-22, 2025 Gathering, which occurred less than a week before the Complaint was filed, Mr. Carson heard nothing from any of the Textron employees there about any problem with the King Air Academy business name or domain name. Respondent's receipt of the present Complaint was the first time that any of its employees found out that Textron had apparently changed its mind about its previous acquiescence to Respondent's name, as evidenced by Textron's longstanding financial and other support of Respondent's efforts within the King Air community.
Respondent does not dispute that the <kingairacademy.com> domain name qualifies as "confusingly similar" to Complainant's KING AIR mark.
Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the <kingairacademy.com> domain name which, apart from the ".com" top-level domain, perfectly matches the King Air Academy name under which Respondent has been commonly known, offering insurance-mandated pilot training specific to Beechcraft King Air aircraft since it was founded in 2012.
There is no reason to doubt that Respondent's longtime provision of insurance-mandated pilot training constitutes a bona fide offering of services.
Respondent's use of the KING AIR mark in both the <kingairacademy.com> domain name and in its business name is a nominative fair use of that mark which truthfully identifies the nature of its insurance-mandated pilot training programs.
Respondent has neither registered nor used the <kingairacademy.com> domain name in bad faith. The domain name reflects Respondent's business name, under which Respondent has for years been providing insurance-mandated pilot training specifically tailored to pilots who fly King Air aircraft. In providing that training, Respondent does not disrupt Complainant's relevant business, which is the sale of the actual Beechcraft King Air aircraft (and parts for it). Respondent also does not create, nor does it intend to create, a likelihood of confusion with Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent's website or services. Those are the only two grounds on which Complainant alleges that Respondent's actions demonstrate bad faith.
Respondent is not a competitor of Complainant and therefore cannot "disrupt" and has no motivation to disrupt Complainant's business through the domain name. Respondent's niche pilot training services do not compete with the aircraft and aircraft parts Complainant sells under the KING AIR mark.
Respondent is using the term "King Air" nominatively to indicate the type of training it offers, not to confuse any potential customers. Moreover, because all of Respondent's services are available only to individuals who already have an FAA pilot's license and instrument and multi-engine ratings, Respondent would have no incentive to attempt to deceive anyone outside of that group of experienced pilots.
Both of the UDRP decisions on which Complainant relies concerning intentional attempts at deception under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) involve reasons for finding intentional deception which do not exist in the present case. In SPTC, Inc. v. Robert Seid / Chicago Title Trust, FA1503001608982 (Forum, April 20, 2015), the registrant of the <sothebysvacationsales.com> domain attempted to pass itself off as the complainant by posting a website there which prominently displayed complainant's marks and logos and used the website to contact consumers with an allegedly fraudulent scheme regarding real estate transactions in vacation timeshare properties.
In Textron Innovations, Inc. v. Nicole Delger / Nicole Delger Communications, FA2409002115783 (Forum, Oct. 21, 2024), the registrant used the domain name <thekingairexpert.com> to link, through several domains, to a website offering "a full suite of private aviation services" including sales of aircraft and brokerage services for buying and selling aircraft, including King Air aircraft and those of third parties, such that the panel found that respondent's site was effectively competing with complainant. Neither of these respondents were making the type of nominative fair use of the complainant's marks that Respondent is making here.
Respondent respectfully requests that this Panel find and state in its decision that the present Complaint represented an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Complainant's argument that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the <kingairacademy.com> domain name turns on an assertion that "no available evidence suggests that Respondent is commonly known as King Air Academy." This assertion is important, because if Respondent is commonly known as King Air Academy (which, of course, it is), then it can demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the <kingairacademy.com> domain name, making Complainant's entire effort futile. Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant undermines, if not outright contradicts, its own assertion however, when earlier in the Complaint it states that "based on the content of the website found at www.kingairacademy.com, it appears that Respondent is a business located in Phoenix, AZ that provides training and flight instruction on King Air models of aircraft." The content of that website which Complainant openly admits investigating makes abundantly clear that the name of that entity offering this flight instruction in Phoenix is in fact King Air Academy.
In addition, Complainant must have known that Respondent was commonly known as King Air Academy at least as far back as all of the King Air Gatherings which Respondent organized and which Complainant financially sponsored and to which it sent speakers. None of that history at King Air Gatherings is mentioned anywhere in the Complaint. Respondent can only conclude that the Complaint suppresses Complainant's familiarity with the rather obvious fact that Respondent is commonly known as King Air Academy in a bad-faith effort to avoid what should be the proper substantive conclusion on the merits.
Complainant's bad faith is also shown by its attempt to achieve something through this present UDRP proceeding that it could not get, and likely knows it could not get, in a U.S. court of law. All of Complainant's arguments about the disputed <kingairacademy.com> domain name representing an intentional effort to disrupt Complainant's business and creating a likelihood of confusion with its own KING AIR mark would apply equally to Respondent's business name King Air Academy. Complainant's success in this proceeding, however, would only result in transfer of the domain name, and would leave Respondent's name unchanged. This raises the obvious question of why Complainant has not attempted to address the supposed underlying problem through a trademark infringement lawsuit or even taken any steps toward that end. The answer to that question seems obvious to Respondent, namely, that Complainant would have little to no chance of prevailing in such a lawsuit.
For all the reasons described above, Respondent's use of the words "King Air" in its King Air Academy name and mark are a nominative fair use of Complainant's KING AIR mark, and moreover Respondent's training services do not compete with Complainant's relevant goods of aircraft and aircraft parts. In addition, Complainant's legal claims would be barred under the doctrines of laches and acquiescence.
Complainant clearly knew about Respondent's business name as early as the 2017 King Air Gathering organized by Respondent, took affirmative action supporting Respondent by sponsoring many of those Gatherings, and took no action against Respondent's name while Respondent's business grew. Any reasonable evaluation would rate Complainant's chances in trademark infringement litigation as very slim, particularly in light of the laches and acquiescence defenses. Complainant is therefore demonstrating bad faith by attempting to get something in this UDRP proceeding that it would not be entitled to under the relevant law.
In USAA v. Harris Claims Service, FA2208002007801 (Forum, Sep. 27, 2022), the Panel found the claimant to have attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. The respondent there was a public insurance claims adjuster which had argued on behalf of policyholders against the adjustment decisions of USAA (an insurance company) for many years. Despite clearly knowing about respondent's business and efforts, the complainant crafted a misleading complaint which concealed respondent's history of representing policyholders against USAA and pretended that use of the disputed domain name had just been uncovered. The Panel concluded that the concealed facts were fatal to the complainant's position, and that they were concealed for that purpose.
The present Panel should come to a similar conclusion about the present Complaint. Complainant's assertion that there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known as King Air Academy is easily contradicted by the website Complainant claims to have investigated and by Respondent's organization of all the King Air Gatherings, which Complainant attended and sponsored. The Complaint is therefore a misleadingly incomplete representation of the relevant facts, where acknowledging those facts would make it clear that Complainant could not prevail. Because of the misleading nature of the Complaint, and the fact that Complainant is attempting to achieve something through the present proceeding which it could not achieve under U.S. law, this Panel should find that it was brought in bad faith and is an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
C. Complainant's Supplemental Filing
The Panel sets out below those parts of Complainant's Supplemental Filing considered to be relevant to the outcome of this proceeding.
Complainant provides evidence that Textron, through a joint venture with Flight Safety International formed in 2019, provides pilot/aircraft training for all Textron Aviation products except piston aircraft and anything on the defense/special missions side. Textron formed this joint venture to provide training for all of its aircraft brands, including King Air. The Textron/FlightSafety joint venture maintains a website at "www.flightsafety.com/business-commercial/pilot/". Private and/or commercial pilots wishing to obtain training on any Textron model of aircraft, including King Air, can search for, find and sign up for a wide range of King Air trainings directly on this website.
Complainant submits that Respondent seems to rely on the notion that its offerings of both initial and recurrent trainings geared toward insurance requirements are a differentiator between its commercial activity and that of Complainant. However, the publicly available, consumer-facing trainings offered via the Textron/FlightSafety joint venture appear to be substantially similar to those trainings offered by Respondent and no evidence suggests that the trainings offered directly by and endorsed by the aircraft manufacturer would not satisfy private insurance training requirements.
Complainant submits that none of Textron's activity with respect to the King Air Gathering constitutes the sanctioning of a wholly separate entity, King Air Academy, to utilize its King Air trademark in a domain name to offer services that compete directly with Textron's authorized trainings.
Complainant acknowledges that, despite being unable to confirm the true identity of the domain registrant using Whois information prior to filing its Complaint, the domain registrar subsequently confirmed to Forum that the domain is registered to Kevin Carson/King Air Academy. With that being said, prior decisions have confirmed that a Respondent adopting a business name and registering a domain – both of which incorporate a trademark belonging to a Complainant – cannot support a claim of legitimate use when the underlying adoption of the business name constitutes bad faith under Policy 4(b)(iii). Senwes Limited v. Ha Gwaza, Senwes Group, D2022-0376 (WIPO March 24, 2022) is dispositive on this issue.
As to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, Complainant has articulated good faith arguments supported by submitted evidence and established prior UDRP decisions on all elements required under the Policy. A finding that the Complaint was brought in order to harass or abuse the process is not, in Complainant's opinion, supported by the facts and arguments raised herein.
FINDINGS
Complainant has failed to establish all the elements entitling it to relief.
DISCUSSION
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."
i) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has shown that it has rights in the KING AIR mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 837,822 registered on October 31, 1967 for "airplanes and parts therefor").
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0 "), section 1.7.
Respondent does not dispute that the <kingairacademy.com> domain name qualifies as "confusingly similar" to Complainant's KING AIR mark and the Panel so finds, since the domain name differs only by the addition of the descriptive word "academy", which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).
Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
The <kingairacademy.com> domain name was registered on November 19, 2013, many years after the registration of the KING AIR mark and shortly before Textron's acquisition of Beech Holdings, the maker of the King Air line of aircraft. Complainant's evidence shows that the domain name resolves to a website prominently displaying the KING AIR mark as part of a logo and offering airline training programs for King Air aircraft. There is no disclaimer of any affiliation with Complainant and Complainant's Supplemental Filing indicates that the parties do compete in providing similar training services.
These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <kingairacademy.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019).
Respondent submits evidence showing that since May 17, 2014 the "www.kingairacademy.com" website has displayed the King Air Academy logo and the email address <info@kingairacademy.com> and has offered "Recurrent & Initial Training for King Air Pilots".
Respondent Kevin Carson, the President of King Air Academy, submits a declaration upon penalty of perjury that he was one of the founders of King Air Academy in 2012 and that, since its founding, King Air Academy has continuously provided insurance-mandated pilot training for King Air aircraft and no other models of aircraft.
Unlike the case Senwes Limited v. Ha Gwaza, Senwes Group, D2022-0376 (WIPO Mar. 24, 2022) cited by Complainant, in which the respondent's company name "Senwes Group Pty Ltd" was found by the panel to have been adopted specifically to take unfair advantage of the complainant's rights, Respondent's evidence satisfies the Panel that Respondent chose the business name King Air Academy and the corresponding domain name for the sole purpose of conveying to customers and potential customers that its business is the provision of pilot training for King Air aircraft.
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that, during the 12 years before any notice to Respondent of this dispute, Respondent has used the <kingairacademy.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of training services for KING AIR aircraft and that Respondent (as a business organization) has been commonly known by the domain name. This reality is not undercut by Complainant's argument that the King Air Gatherings are separate from Respondent's primary business activities because, even accepting that the parties are in competition, Complainant has, since at least 2017, clearly acknowledged and acquiesced in Respondent being commonly known by the domain name and business name by collaborating with it for these Gatherings.
Hence Respondent has shown that it has Rights or Legitimate Interests in the <kingairacademy.com> domain name.
Complainant has failed to establish this element.
As to whether Respondent's use of the KING AIR mark in both the <kingairacademy.com> domain name and in its business name is a nominative fair use of that mark, the Panel notes the lack of any disclaimer on Respondent's website so as to avoid any confusion or implied affiliation with Complainant's business, as required in the Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., supra, line of cases, and considers that a court is in the best position to determine whether, based on the overall circumstances of this case, Respondent's business as a whole falsely suggests sponsorship or endorsement by Complainant.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii). Complainant invokes Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv), namely:
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
In light of the Panel's above findings under the second element of the Policy, the Panel determines that neither of Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv) apply in this case, nor that Respondent has otherwise acted in bad faith.
REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH") is defined in Rule 1 as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name". Rule 15(e) provides, in part:
"If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."
While the Complaint omits any mention of Complainant's collaboration with Respondent through the King Air Gatherings, the Panel views, as a countervailing element, the lack of any disclaimer or other indicia on Respondent's website that it is not affiliated with or licensed by Complainant to use the KING AIR mark. Despite Respondent's assertion that pilots are, as a group, sophisticated consumers, there remains the possibility that some may be confused, at least initially, as to some association between the parties based on the name King Air Academy. Further, Respondent asserts that the parties do not compete in any way and asserts that Complainant's "joint venture LLC is not part of Textron itself, and appears to offer pilot qualification and training programs to the government through federal contracts." This is a bit misleading as Complainant does, in fact, provide evidence of its pilot training services directed at a range of pilots with a link titled "Business & Commercial" on the "www.flightsafety.com" website used by its joint venture.
As Complainant may, in fact, have a legitimate claim against Respondent sounding in trademark infringement and involving issues of nominative fair use, the Panel is not prepared to find it more likely than not that its present Complaint against the disputed domain name crosses the line into RDNH under the preponderance of the evidence standard.
DECISION
Complainant having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <kingairacademy.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Steven M. Levy, Panelist
Alan L. Limbury, Chair
Dated: May 16, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page