DECISION
Textron Innovations Inc. v. Douglas Carmody / Executive Flight Training
Claim Number: FA2504002151253
PARTIES
Complainant is Textron Innovations Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jeremiah A. Pastrick, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Douglas Carmody / Executive Flight Training ("Respondent"), South Carolina, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <beechcraftkingairsales.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Luca Barbero as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 17, 2025; Forum received payment on April 17, 2025.
On April 18, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <beechcraftkingairsales.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 April 24, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 14, 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@beechcraftkingairsales.com. Also on April 24, 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 May 6, 2025.
On May 08, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Luca Barbero 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.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that it is the owner of the KING AIR and BEECHCRAFT marks that it licenses exclusively to Textron Aviation.
Complainant contends that the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's BEECHCRAFT and KING AIR marks in which it has rights as it reproduces both marks in their entirety with the mere addition of the word "sales" and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com".
Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name since it is in no way licensed or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use its BEECHCRAFT and KING AIR marks in any way and it is not commonly known by the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name.
Moreover, Complainant contends that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services since the website at the disputed domain name, and its related competing services, are intended to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by Complainant and to capitalize on the value of the BEECHCRAFT and KING AIR marks in order to attract customers.
Complainant also submits that Respondent is simply using the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name to redirect users to its website "www.executiveflighttraining.com" and points out that such use in no way constitutes a legitimate use.
Complainant submits that the Oki Data test is not applicable in this case because Respondent is selling no genuine or authorized goods in relation to its BEECHCRAFT and KING AIR marks and the services that it offers are not authorized by Complainant. Complainant further submits that, even considering the Oki Data test applicable in this case, Respondent does not have a legitimate interest as it is not offering its training services in connection with only the trademarks used in the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name, as it offers training on other aircraft models.
With reference to the circumstances evidencing bad faith, the Complainant indicates that, considering i) the registration of the BEECHCRAFT and KING AIR marks long predates the registration of the disputed domain name, ii) the Complainant's goodwill in its BEECHCRAFT and KING AIR marks, and iii) the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant's marks, Respondent registered the disputed domain name having knowledge of the Complainant's rights and in bad faith.
Complainant submits that Respondent is using the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name to intentionally disrupt the business of Complainant and is also intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website.
B. Respondent
Respondent denies Complainant's allegations and claims that its use of the term "King Air" constitutes nominative fair use under the United States trademark law and any reference to the term is in no way intended to refer to the brand, but simply to the aircraft model for instructional purposes of its services since its sales, training and safety materials are specific to aircraft type and performance characteristics.
The Respondent also states that it does not use Complainant's logos, stylizations or visual trade dress on its website and submits that the use of the aircraft model name is purely functional and factual.
Respondent points out that its website includes a disclaimer declaring it is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Complainant and that none of the trademarks or related material cited on its website as such, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Complainant.
Respondent states that Respondent's core mission is to improve aviation safety and training outcomes and that its secondary mission is to provide prospective and current King Air and Citation owners with a bespoke, curated sales channel.
Respondent further submits that its use of "Beechcraft King Air Sales" is factual, educational, and non-commercial in the trademark sense and does not create market confusion or diminish the value of the Complainant's brand in any way.
FINDINGS
Complainant is an affiliate of the conglomerate Textron and the owner of the KING AIR and BEECHCRAFT marks, that it licenses exclusively to Textron Aviation. Textron Aviation is the general aviation business unit of the conglomerate Textron that was formed in March 2014 following the acquisition of Beech Holdings which included the Beechcraft (maker of King Air) and Hawker Aircraft businesses.
Textron Inc. was founded in 1923. Textron has grown into a network of businesses with total revenues of $13.7 billion, ranking 265th on the FORTUNE 500 list of largest U.S. companies, with approximately 34,000 employees with facilities and presence in 25 countries, serving a diverse and global customer base.
Textron's companies include some of the most respected global brands in transportation, including Beechcraft, Bell Helicopter, E-Z-GO golf carts and Cessna aircraft.
Complainant owns the following trademark registrations in the United States (Exhibit 3 to the Complaint):
- United States trademark registration No. 837822 for KING AIR (word mark), filed on October 06, 1966, and registered on October 31, 1967, in international class 12;
- United States trademark registration No. 418379 for BEECHCRAFT (figurative mark), filed on May 31, 1945, and registered on December 18, 1945, in international class 12.
Textron Aviation operates a website at <www.txtav.com>, that features information on its products and services, including on Textron's Beechcraft and King Air lines of aircraft.
The <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name was registered on May 27, 2013, and is redirected to the website "www.executiveflighttraining.com", promoting Respondent's business in South Carolina, providing training and flight instruction on a variety of models of private aircrafts including Cessna (Citation; Twin), Daher (TBM), King Air, Pilatus (PC-12), Piper (Cheyenne) and Beechcraft (Baron), as well as access to strategic sales of Beechcraft King Airs and Cessna Citations unavailable through conventional channels.
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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established rights in the BEECHCRAFT and KING AIR marks based on its United States trademark registrations Nos. 837822 and 418379 cited above. See GK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015), holding that a complainant's registration with the USPTO or any other governmental authority adequately proves complainant's rights under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
The <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name incorporates Complainant's the denominative element of the BEECHCRAFT mark and the KING AIR mark in their entirety with the mere addition of the word "sales" and the gTLD ".com". The addition of the word "sale" and a gTLD to a mark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark incorporated therein according to Policy 4(a)(i).
In view of the above, the Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name is confusingly similar to both trademarks in which Complainant has established rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant is required to make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case) and Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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.").
In the case at hand, Complainant has made a prima facie case and Respondent has failed to raise convincing circumstances that could demonstrate, pursuant to Policy 4(a)(ii), rights or legitimate interests in the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name.
Complainant submitted, and Respondent has not denied, that Respondent is not an affiliated company or authorized agent of Complainant and has not been licensed, permitted, or authorized by Complainant to use the BEECHCRAFT and KING AIR marks or to register the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name.
Moreover, there is no indication before the Panel that Respondent, whose name is "Douglas Carmody / Executive Flight Training" according to the WHOIS information provided by the Registrar, is commonly known by the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name pursuant to Policy 4(c)(ii).
Respondent has redirected the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name, confusingly similar to the BEECHCRAFT and KING AIR marks, to its website at "www.executiveflighttraining.com", where Respondent promotes flight training services for turbine-powered aircrafts which compete with the ones of Complainant's authorized training centers and offers a strategic sale service of Beechcraft King Air and Cessna aircrafts.
Respondent contends that the use of the terms "Beechcraft King Air Sales" is necessary to accurately identify and refer to the BEECHCRAFT aircraft models, as the sales, training and safety materials it produces and provides are specific to aircraft type and performance characteristics, which cannot be reasonably described without use of the recognized model name.
The Panel finds that, whilst Respondent may be entitled to refer to Complainant's marks BEECHCRAFT and KING AIR to describe the type of services it provides, i.e. in connection with BEECHCRAFT and KING AIR aircraft models, it does not have the right to do so using a domain name encompassing Complainant's marks without permission.
Specifically, the Panel finds that the use of Complainant's marks in the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name does not amount to a nominative fair use since it suggests an affiliation with Complainant that does not exist. Domain names that consist of a complainant's trademark or a complainant's trademark with an additional term, cannot be "fair use" if the domain effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. See RELX Inc. v. Yang Xin, FA 2107554 (Forum Aug. 21, 2024).
Moreover, Respondent's use of the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name to merely redirect users to Respondent's own website "www.beechcraftkingairsales.com" does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, since Respondent is using the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name to divert Internet users, confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between Respondent's website and Complainant. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Aug. 21, 2017).
In addition, it should be noted that Respondent's services are not authorized by Complainant and do not relate only to Complainant's marks reflected in the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name. Indeed, in addition to training on BEECHCRAFT and KING AIR models, Respondent offers training on Cessna, Piper, Daher and Pilatus aircraft. Moreover, the Panel finds that the disclaimer provided on Respondent's website is not sufficient to prevent a likelihood of confusion with Complainant as it is not sufficiently prominent and is published at the bottom of the website, thus not being clearly visible to users visiting Respondent's website.
In view of the above-described use of the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish Complainant's marks.
See Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial site); see also Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum Feb. 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain's resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name according to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that, in light of the prior registration of the trademarks BEECHCRAFT and KING AIR in the United States since 1945 and 1967, the use of the marks in connection with Complainant's products and services in the United States, and the well-known character of the BEECHCRAFT and KING AIR marks in the aviation sector, Respondent could not ignore the existence of Complainant's marks at the time of registration of the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name.
Indeed, Respondent admits having knowledge of the BEECHCRAFT and KING AIR marks but contends that its use of "Beechcraft King Air Sales" is factual, educational, and non-commercial in the trademark sense and does not create market confusion or diminish the value of the BEECHCRAFT KING AIR brand in any way.
Considering the confusing similarity of the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name with Complainant's well-known marks and the circumstance that the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name redirects to the Respondent's official website at "www.executiveflighttraining.com", displaying information on sales of Complainant's aircrafts and on training on Complainant's aircraft models, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name being well aware of Complainant and its marks.
Moreover, in view of the redirection of the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name to Respondent's website described above, promoting Respondent's training services also on aircraft models of Complainant's competitors and providing a disclaimer of non-affiliation with Complainant only at the bottom of the website and in lower characters, the Panel finds that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract internet users to its website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website according to Policy 4(b)(iv).
Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has proven that Respondent registered and is using the <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name in bad faith according to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
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 <beechcraftkingairsales.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Luca Barbero, Panelist
Dated: May 22, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page