DECISION

 

Southwest Airlines Co. v. erty erty / SOUTHWEST HOME SOLUTIONS LLC

Claim Number: FA2508002170485

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Southwest Airlines Co. ("Complainant"), represented by Tara K. Hawkes of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is erty erty / SOUTHWEST HOME SOLUTIONS LLC ("Respondent"), represented by Barry Siegel of FarmaKeio 503B Outsourcing, Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <form-southwest.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.

 

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 8, 2025; Forum received payment on August 8, 2025.

 

On August 11, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <form-southwest.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 August 15, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 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@form-southwest.com. Also on August 15, 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.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On September 9, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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

Complainant made the following contentions.

1.       The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of the services of a prominent national and international airline and has been so engaged since 1971.

2.       The Complainant provides its goods and services under its registered trademark for SOUTHWEST.

3.       The Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by virtue of its registration of the SOUTHWEST trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration number 3,129,737, registered on August 15, 2006 and other registrations for SOUTHWEST, SOUTHWEST AIRLINES and derivatives, both domestically and internationally (collectively "the SOUTHWEST trademark").

4.       The SOUTHWEST trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services and with the Complainant as a prominent airline.

5.       As well as its aforesaid trademark, the Complainant registered the <southwest.com>, <southwestair.com> and <careers.southwestair.com> domain names prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, and which it has continually used since their registration to provide its services and promote its business and its brand, including employment opportunities.

6.       The Respondent registered the <form-southwest.com disputed domain name on April 22,2025 ("the disputed domain name"), well after the Complainant had established its aforesaid registered trademark rights.

7.       The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the SOUTHWEST trademark, with the addition of a hyphen, the generic word "form" and the generic Top Level Domain ".com".

8.       The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SOUTHWEST trademark.

9.       The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That is so because:

(a)       the Complainant has owned and used the SOUTHWEST trademark since at least as early as its registration, but the Respondent did not register the disputed domain name until April 22, 2025 which it did without any consent from the Complainant and has never had any trademark or other rights in the SOUTHWEST trademark;

(b)       the Respondent has caused the dispute domain name to resolve to a website that impersonates the Complainant and its website at <careers.southwestair.com>, purports to offer employment, contains links to the Complainant's Career Website and purports to invite prospective employees to "Apply Now" for jobs by means of a job application form, giving rise to a likelihood of confusion among internet users;

(c)       the aforesaid job application form requires applicants to give their personal information intended to be used by the Respondent as part of a phishing scheme or other fraud;    

(d)       to further its aforesaid subterfuge, and to give it an air of verisimilitude, the Respondent has registered and used the entity named Southwest Home Solutions LLC as the registrant or one of the registrants of the domain name;

(e)       the Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission or other consent to use its trademark in a domain name or in any other way and the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant;

(f)       the aforesaid use of the domain name by the Respondent is not a bona fide offer of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i);

(g)       the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);

(h)       the aforesaid use of the disputed domain name is not a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); and

(i)       there is no other basis on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.

10.       The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. That is so because:

(a)                      the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 22, 2025, well after the Complainant had established its aforesaid rights in the SOUTHWEST trademark;

(b)                      the Respondent has used the domain name for a website that mimics the Complainant and its website and includes links to the Complainant's Southwest Careers website;

(c)                      the Respondent having registered the confusingly similar disputed domain name, incorporating as it does the SOUTHWEST trademark without permission, and having used it for a website purporting to offer employment with the Complainant, has generated confusion among internet users within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(iv);

(d)                      the Respondent at all material times had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark, brand and business;

(e)                      the Respondent has traded on the goodwill of the Complainant and the SOUTHWEST trademark and passed itself off as the Complainant;

(f)                      by reason of the matters aforesaid, the Respondent has attempted to generate a phishing scheme; and

(g)                      all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances to be revealed by the evidence will show that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and that there is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately have registered and used the disputed domain name.

The evidence will therefore establish that the Complainant has been able to make out all of the grounds it must establish and that it is entitled to the relief that it seeks.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1.       The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of the services of a prominent national and international airline and has been so engaged since 1971.

2.       The Complainant provides its goods and services under its registered trademark for SOUTHWEST.

3.       The Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by virtue of its registration of the SOUTHWEST trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration number 3,129,737, registered on August 15, 2006 and other registrations for SOUTHWEST, SOUTHWEST AIRLINES and derivatives, both domestically and internationally (collectively "the SOUTHWEST trademark").

4.       The Respondent registered the <form-southwest.com disputed domain name on April 22,2025 ("the disputed domain name"), well after the Complainant had established its aforesaid registered trademark rights.

5.       The Respondent caused the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that targeted the Complainant, potential job seekers and internet users in general, infringed and tarnished the Complainant's trademark, impersonated and passed itself off as the Complainant, copied the Complainant on its website and actively sought to mislead and confuse internet users to believe that the employment offered on the Respondent's website was genuine and official employment with the Complainant, which it was not.

6.       By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SOUTHWEST trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

7.       Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

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

The first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. The evidence has established that the Complainant provides its goods and services under its registered trademark for SOUTHWEST and that it has done so for many years and in particular for many years prior to the registration of the domain name by the Respondent. In particular, the evidence is that the Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by virtue of its registration of the SOUTHWEST trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration number 3,129,737, registered on August 15, 2006 and other registrations for SOUTHWEST, SOUTHWEST AIRLINES and derivatives, both domestically and internationally (collectively "the SOUTHWEST trademark").

The evidence also shows that the trademark is registered with respect to "(t)ransportation of passengers and/or goods by air", that it is current and that it is registered in the name of the Complainant.

All of the aforesaid facts have been established by documentary evidence that the Panel has examined and finds to be in order.

The Complainant has thus established its trademark rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and hence its standing to bring this proceeding.

The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's SOUTHWEST trademark. The Panel finds that the <form-southwest.com> disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SOUTHWEST trademark. That is so because it consists solely of the wording of the trademark itself, the generic word "form", a hyphen and the ".com" Top Level Domain.

When a domain name includes a trademark, it is more likely than not that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark, as the domain name will usually be dominated by the trademark which is the most significant portion of the domain name. In the present case that is obviously so, as the domain name includes as its most prominent feature the word "southwest". Internet users would undoubtedly read this as meaning South West Airlines, as South West Airlines is so well known by the name South West.

The domain name in the present case also includes the generic word "form", which will not negate the conclusion that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark, because internet users would see the domain name as invoking the trademark and the goods and services offered under it, including employment services and as offering a means of obtaining information, including as to employment with the airline, by means of using the form being offered.

Features like a hyphen are universally regarded as being too minor to have any effect on this interpretation.

It is also the established practice in this field that extensions such as ".com" are disregarded for the purposes of the comparison between a trademark and a domain name, as all domain names require such an extension and its presence does not inform internet users one way or the other whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark. There are many prior UDRP decisions to that effect.

Applying these well-accepted principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SOUTHWEST trademark.

The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish as provided in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such 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 satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).

 

The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant, namely:

(a)       the Complainant has owned and used the SOUTHWEST trademark since at least as early as its registration, but the Respondent did not register the disputed domain name until April 22, 2025 which it did without any consent from the Complainant and the Respondent has never had any trademark or other rights in the SOUTHWEST trademark; thus, the evidence shows that the Complainant used its trademark, its own official domain names <southwest.com>, <southwestair.com> and <careers.southwestair.com> and its own official websites, to offer its goods and services for many years before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name; accordingly, the Respondent could not have acquired any right or legitimate interest in a domain name which included the Complainant's previously registered trademark;

(b)       the Respondent has caused the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that impersonates the Complainant and its website at <careers.southwestair.com>, purports to offer employment, contains links to the Complainant's Career Website and purports to invite prospective employees to "Apply Now" for jobs by means of a job application form, giving rise to a likelihood of confusion among internet users; this is seen from the Exhibit 13 to the Complainant which is a brazen use of the Complainant's trademark; it obviously seeks to present itself as a genuine website of the Complainant and makes so many uses of the SOUTH WEST trademark that it is difficult to count them; it extolls the attraction of working for the Complainant, offers careers, partnership, being part of a team, health benefits, profit-sharing, evokes the concept of the Heart which is itself the focus of another trademark of the Complainant and then requires applications for employment to be made via the site; Exhibit 14 contains the application form which requires personal information from the applicant, showing that this is clearly a phishing exercise; all of the content just described is shown under the imprimatur of the Complainant's SOUTHWEST trademark which is clearly unauthorized and is an infringement of the trademark;

(c)       the aforesaid job application form requires applicants to give their personal information intended to be used by the Respondent as part of a phishing scheme or other fraud; this has already been established by the evidence;   

(d)       to further its aforesaid subterfuge, and to give it an air of verisimilitude, the evidence shows that the Respondent has registered and used the entity named Southwest Home Solutions LLC as the registrant of the domain name;

(e)       the Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission or other consent to use its trademark in a domain name or in any other way and the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant; this has been established by the evidence and shows that it could not be argued that the domain name was registered or used with anything like the consent of the Complainant;

(f)       the aforesaid use of the domain name by the Respondent is not a bona fide offer of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i); the evidence to establish this is contained in Exhibits 13 and 14 and it is not necessary to repeat that evidence here; suffice to say that it shows the Respondent's conduct has been entirely fraudulent, being based on the registration of the domain name by helping itself to the trademark without consent and then using it to set up a bogus website whose purpose was to collect information and build up but then destroy the hopes of job seekers; there is nothing bona fide in taking another party's trademark without consent and using it to resolve to a fraudulent website that offers non-existent jobs, making prominent use of the Complainant's trademark and, in the course of doing so, passing itself off as the trademark owner; and the whole get-up of the website is clearly designed to mimic and masquerade as the Complainant, pretend that it is the Complainant's website and to give the false illusion that the jobs being offered are genuine SOUTHWEST jobs which they obviously are not; thus the Respondent by engaging in these subterfuges has not acted in a bona fide manner; it would be more accurate to describe the Respondent's motives and conduct as mala fide;

(g)       the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the domain name, either commonly or otherwise, and there is no evidence that it is known by any name other than its own, which is "erty erty" and the misleading and deceptive Southwest Home Solutions LLC, obviously concocted to give an air of verisimilitude to very bald and deceitful conduct by the Respondent;

(h)       the aforesaid use of the disputed domain name is not a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); it is not legitimate as it is entirely illegitimate, based as it is on a series of falsehoods; it is not noncommercial as it is purely commercial, being intended to make money by one means or another; and it is not fair, either to the Complainant or to internet users in general because they are being duped and their hopes of employment will be dashed; and

(i)        there is no other basis on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.

The Complainant has thus made out a persuasive and detailed case on the evidence for all of the grounds it relies on to show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent. The Respondent is in default and has not advanced any evidence or submissions to show that it could rebut the Complainant's contentions.

 

The Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements it must establish under Policy ¶4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶4(b) are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.

In view of the evidence discussed above, particularly Exhibits 13 and 14, which is equally as applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests and which it is not necessary to repeat here, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on. The Respondent has clearly been motivated by bad faith in the registration of the domain name and has continued in that conduct after its registration, showing bad faith use; the registration was, as was its use, clearly an attempt by the Respondent to use its domain name, incorporating as it does the Complainant's trademark, for a dishonest and financial objective, as it resolves to a website that passes itself off as that of the Complainant, and uses it to pretend that the employment allegedly offered there is genuine employment with the renowned South West Airlines which it was not and employment which did not exist at all. It is therefore clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted:

(a)                      the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 22, 2025, well after the Complainant had established its aforesaid rights in the SOUTHWEST trademark;

(b)                      the Respondent has used the domain name for a website that mimics the Complainant and its website and includes links to the Complainant's Southwest Careers website; the evidence has shown that the website was false, contained a series of lies, built up a series of potential employment hopes that would inevitably be dashed and was little if anything better than a website designed for phishing; clearly all of this conduct was in bad faith;

(c)                      the Respondent having registered the confusingly similar disputed domain name, incorporating as it does the SOUTHWEST trademark without permission, and having used it for a website purporting to offer employment with the Complainant, has generated confusion among internet users within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(iv); it must have led to confusion because at least some internet users must have thought and believed that they were dealing with the Complainant airline when in fact they were not;

(d)                      the Respondent at all material times had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark, brand and business; the evidence shows that the Respondent at all material times had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks, brand and business because of the renown of the Complainant, its brand, trademark and services and because the Respondent has copied the trademark so many times on its website; the Respondent also must have had such actual knowledge in view of the detailed content of the offending website and that it could not have carried out its subterfuge without having that actual knowledge;

(e)                       the Respondent has traded on the goodwill of the Complainant and the SOUTHWEST trademark and passed itself off as the Complainant; this has already been established by the evidence;

(f)                      by reason of the matters aforesaid, the Respondent has attempted to generate a phishing scheme; this has also been established by the evidence; and

(g)                      all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances revealed by the evidence have shown that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and that there is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately have registered and used the disputed domain name.

The evidence has therefore established that the Complainant has been able to make out all of the grounds it must establish and that it is entitled to the relief that it seeks.

Finally, in addition to the specific provisions of the Policy and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name using the SOUTHWEST trademark and in view of the conduct of the Respondent, as shown by all of the available evidence, the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. It is clear that, from the beginning, the Respondent set about targeting the Complainant, potential job seekers and internet users in general, infringed and tarnished the Complainant's trademark, impersonated and passed itself off as the Complainant, copied the Complainant on its website and actively sought to mislead and confuse internet users to believe that the employment offered on the Respondent's website was genuine and official employment with the Complainant, which it was not.

The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

The Complainant has thus presented a detailed and persuasive case consisting of evidence that has established all of the constituent elements that must be proved under the Policy

The Complainant has also cited numerous prior UDRP decisions which support all of its contentions.

The Complainant has therefore established all the elements that it must show under the Policy and it is entitled to the relief it seeks, namely transfer of the disputed domain name.

 

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 <form-southwest.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC, Panelist

Dated: September 10, 2025