DECISION
Textron Innovations Inc. v. Joerg Dogondke
PARTIES
Complainant is Textron Innovations Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jeremiah A. Pastrick of Pastrick Law LLC, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Joerg Dogondke ("Respondent"), Germany.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <cessna150150.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.
Michael A. Albert 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 <cessna150150.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@cessna150150.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 14, 2025.
On May 14, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Michael A. Albert 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 domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The domain <cessna150150.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered Cessna marks. Respondent has bundled the Cessna trademark with the generic descriptor "150150" (presumably a duplication of the Cessna model number 150) to create the offending domain name.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is an organization named Quantum Swiss LLC and the domain <cessna150150.com> is used simply as a redirect path that attempts to capitalize on the value and fame of the CESSNA brand, confuse consumers and "bait and switch" them into visiting Respondent's website by creating a false appearance of affiliation with Complainant.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith and is being used to create confusion about a purported connection with or endorsement by Complainant (although there is none) and to capitalize on the fame and value of the CESSNA brand to illegitimately drive web traffic to Respondent's website.
B. Respondent
Although the word "Cessna" appears in the domain, the combination "Cessna150150" is a unique and descriptive hybrid. It reflects:
• The Cessna 150 model aircraft (an FAA-registered designation);
• The 150 HP engine upgrade that is at the core of Respondent's FAA STC SA1034SW.
This is not merely the use of a trademark, but the transformation of public domain aircraft data into a service identifier. As the WIPO panel held in Lego Juris A/S v. Robyn Hudson, Case No. D2011-0659, "merely including a trademark within a domain name does not, without more, automatically lead to a finding of confusing similarity where additional elements are descriptive or denote third-party value-added activity."
Quantum Swiss LLC has been actively engaged in the aviation industry, with a specific focus on enhancing the performance of Cessna aircraft. Its services are specialized and cater to a niche market of Cessna 150 owners seeking performance upgrades. Respondent has a contractual relationship with Lycoming, a subsidiary of Textron, for the supply of engines used in its Supplemental Type Certificates (STC) upgrades. This relationship underscores its legitimate business operations and its dedication to delivering high-quality services to the aviation community.
The domain name is used in good faith, for a legitimate business purpose, and does not violate the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) criteria. This disclaimer is placed at the top and bottom of Respondent's homepage to ensure visibility:
• "We are not affiliated with the Cessna Aircraft Company in any way, shape, or form."
• "This website is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by Cessna Aircraft Company or Textron Aviation Inc. in any way. Cessna® is a registered trademark of Textron Innovations Inc. This site is independently operated by FAA-authorized STC holder Quantum Swiss LLC, providing upgrade services for legacy Cessna 150 aircraft."
FINDINGS
For the reasons set out below, the Panel finds that Complainant has not established two of the three elements necessary to entitle it to a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the requested relief will be denied.
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 demonstrated rights in the CESSNA mark as a result of its multiple long-held trademark registrations. Examples of Complainant's registrations are: CESSNA, U.S. Registration No. 3224322 registered April 3, 2007, CESSNA, U.S. Registration No. 867,435, registered April 1, 1969 and CESSNA, U.S. Registration No. 896,675, registered August 11, 1970.
The Disputed Domain Name wholly incorporates the CESSNA mark with the addition only of the descriptive element "150150" – a designation that the parties agree relates to a particular Cessna model number, "150," although they disagree as to the meaning of that number being repeated (an issue not material to the present analysis).
Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See, e.g., Rakuten, Inc. v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Matthew Connor, No Company, WIPO Case No. D2019-2983.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The parties appear to agree that one commonly-used test for determining rights or legitimate interests in cases where a mark is incorporated into a domain name by an entity that resells, services, or provides certain other value-added parts, services, or modifications in connection with genuine goods originally sold by the trademark owner was set forth in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (the "Oki Data Test").
Under the Oki Data Test, registration and use of such a domain name is legitimate if four factors all favor respondent:
1. Respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue.
2. Respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods; otherwise, it could be using the trademark to bait Internet users and then switch them to other goods.
3. Respondent's web site must accurately disclose the registrant's relationship with the trademark owner; it may not, for example, falsely suggest that it is the trademark owner, or that the website is the official site, if it is not.
4. Respondent must not try to corner the market in all domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of reflecting its own mark in a domain name.
The panel finds that the Oki Data Test is appropriate for analyzing the present case, subject to the modification discussed below under which literal application of the test's four factors is not required, but rather the test can be applied "holistically," as several panels have held, to ensure that the core principles behind each factor are met.
While both parties cite the Oki Data Test, they differ in the conclusions they draw from that test.
With regard to factor 1, Complainant alleges that the test is not met because the products sold by Respondent are not precisely the ones trademarked by Complainant. That assertion is true in the literal sense that Respondent's goods, although beginning with genuine Cessna products, are thereafter modified, and the resulting product is no longer within Complainant's quality control purview. But under the holistic view of the Oki Data Test taken by several recent panels, the fact that the products at issue are not precisely the same as those sold by Complainant is not dispositive when they are genuinely aftermarket products based on and using as their starting point authentic Cessna-branded products. Accordingly, the panel finds that the first factor has been met.
As to the second Oki Data factor, Respondent represents that he does not make or sell any products relating to any other manufacturer that competes with Textron. Neither Complainant nor anything that the panel has seen in the record suggest otherwise. That factor accordingly has been met.
As to Factor 3, which looks to whether Respondent has an adequate disclaimer of any relationship with Complainant, the Panel finds it somewhat troubling that Respondent lacked any such disclaimer on his site until this case was filed. However, Respondent has subsequently posted a clear, prominent, and suitable disclaimer. While that factor thus presents a close call, on balance, the panel finds that Factor 3 has been met.
In this regard, this case is analogous to Doosan Bobcat North America, Inc. v. mohit jagwani, engine world usa, WIPO Case No. D2024-3191("Bobcat"), in which the panel found that "[a]fter hearing from the Complainant, the Respondent changed the website header to remove the prominence of the BOBCAT mark, added language that makes it clearer that the Respondent is a supplier of aftermarket parts, and made certain that a disclaimer appears on the site, intended to lessen any potential confusion." In that case, even though the disclaimers were not provided until after notice from Complainant (as is the case here), the panel found that they were sufficient under Oki Data. Id.
Indeed, the facts here bear substantial similarities to the Bobcat case, which held that "applying a holistic approach, the Panel finds on balance that the changes the Respondent made illuminate the overall bona fide offering of goods using the disputed Domain Name." Id. Here, likewise, Respondent appears to be engaged in a good-faith aftermarket business whose products originate with genuine Cessna products.
Additionally, much like in Bobcat,
"[o]verall, the Respondent has not engaged in the typical sorts of actions one sees with domain name registrants accused of bad-faith cybersquatting. Moreover, the Panel recognizes that this case may more accurately be characterized as a trademark dispute rather than a simple case of domain name abuse. This involves a nuanced analysis of trademark law, including the likelihood of confusion and the scope of the Respondent's fair use of the BOBCAT mark. It may be more appropriate for a court of competent jurisdiction to address the trademark issues involved, where a full analysis of the likelihood of confusion and other relevant factors can be undertaken. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has demonstrated a legitimate interest in the disputed Domain Name for the purposes of the Policy, by making a bona fide offering of products – aftermarket parts for the Complainant's machinery – and by taking significant steps to bring its conduct within the scope of what the Oki Data Test permits." Id.
The above assessment is applicable here as well.
In sum, the Panel finds that Respondent has shown legitimate rights or interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In view of the Panel's conclusion with regard to Respondent's legitimate rights or interests, there is no need to turn to the bad faith analysis. That said, for the same reasons discussed above in connection with legitimate rights or interests, the Panel finds that Complainant has not established bad faith registration or use of the disputed domain name.
DECISION
Complainant not having established two of the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <cessna150150.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Michael A. Albert, Panelist
Dated: May 20, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page