DECISION

 

Textron Aviation Inc. v. Omar Morais

Claim Number: FA2603002208967

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Textron Aviation Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jeremiah A. Pastrick, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Omar Morais ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <beechtec.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 5, 2026; Forum received payment on March 5, 2026.

 

On March 6, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <beechtec.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 11, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 16, 2026 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@beechtec.com. Also on March 11, 2026, 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 14, 2026.

 

On April 15, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

On April 16, 2026, Complainant submitted an Additional Submission.

 

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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: PREVIOUS UDRP PROCEEDING

The Complaint states, in the section "Other Legal Proceedings": "As discussed above, Complainant acknowledges a prior UDRP filed against this domain (FA2404002094083). No other current of prior legal proceedings exist."

 

In its Additional Submission (see below) Complainant states that this text was included by mistake and requests that it be stricken from the Complaint. The Panel accepts that request.

 

Obiter dictum, the Panel notes that the Complaint does not actually contain any prior discussion of that alleged prior UDRP case. As Respondent correctly points out, the cited case involved a different domain name and a different respondent.

 

The cited part of the Complainant appears to be a copy-paste error: in fact there was no prior UDRP proceeding involving the disputed domain name.

 

See also the discussion below regarding Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is the general aviation business unit of the conglomerate Textron and was formed in March 2014 following the acquisition of Beech Holdings which included the Beechcraft and Hawker Aircraft businesses. Textron is not only one of the world's best known multi-industry companies, it is a pioneer of the diversified business model. Founded in 1923, it has grown into a network of businesses with total revenues of $13.4 billion (it is ranked 219th 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. Complainant's companies include some of the most respected global brands in transportation, including Beechcraft, Bell Helicopters, E-Z-GO golf carts, and Cessna aircraft. Beechcraft Aircraft Company was founded in Witchita, KS in 1932 by Walter H. Beech and his wife and business partner, Olive Ann Beech, when Walter left an executive position with Curtiss-Wright Corporation to start designing and manufacturing his own line of airplanes. While many warned that there was no market for a cabin biplane with a luxurious interior in the midst of the Great Depression, the two visionaries forged ahead with their plans to build the "finest aircraft in the world" and changed the course of general aviation. Beechcraft's line of iconic King Air turboprops and built-for-adventure Baron G58 and Bonanza G36 piston aircraft have shaped the way pilots and businesses fly for more than 50 years. Complainant asserts rights in the BEECHCRAFT mark through its registration in the United States in 1963.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BEECHCRAFT mark as it consists of an amalgamation of "Beech", the commonly-used nickname for BEECHCRAFT, and the generic term "tec".

 

According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent's use of its mark. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use through the disputed domain name. Instead, the resolving website states that Respondent is an 'Authorized Dealer' for "a variety of brands including Beechcraft, Bonanza and Beechcraft Baron" – a statement that is presented alongside the Beechcraft and Textron Aviation logos. However, Respondent is not an authorized Beechcraft/Textron Aviation dealer or authorized service center and its location near Houston, TX places it in proximity to and in direct competition with four authorized Beechcraft service centers. The BEECHCRAFT mark is so well-known that the only plausible inference that can be derived from Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name is that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to capitalize on the value and fame of the BEECHCRAFT brand, confuse consumers and "bait and switch" them into visiting Respondent's website by creating a false affiliation with Complainant. Respondent's domain name and its services compete directly with Complainant and its authorized service providers and are unquestionably intended to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by Complainant and to capitalize on the value of the Beechcraft brand in attracting customers.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent does not satisfy the criteria set forth in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO, Nov. 6, 2001), because Respondent is not authorized and/or licensed to use the BEECHCRAFT trademark and is not an authorized Beechcraft service provider. Respondent is offering unauthorized services and, according to its website, also sells parts from "Aero Cosmetics, Amsafe, Camguard, D'Shannon Products, G&D Aero, and JP Instruments" – none of which are authorized Textron/Beechcraft products. Respondent does not accurately disclose its relationship with Complainant because the resolving website displays no disclaimer whatsoever and makes zero attempt to distance itself from Complainant, clarify the nature of its relationship with Complainant or publicize that its parts are in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Complainant. To the contrary, Respondent utilizes the Beechcraft and Textron Aviation logos on its website and incorporates the highly confusing "Beechtec Air Services is an "Authorized Dealer" for . . ." language next to the Beechcraft logo and above a variety of Beechcraft/Textron brands.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith: one can only assume that the elements referred to above of the resolving website are placed intentionally and serve to obfuscate the unauthorized nature of Respondent's services and products, as prohibited by UDRP Policy, and to attract 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 states that it operates an established aviation maintenance business in Spring, Texas. This business was previously owned and operated for many years under the name "Beaver Air Service," a name derived from its prior owner, David Beaver. During that time, the business developed a strong reputation within the local aviation community, built a consistent customer base, and focused solely on the maintenance and service of Beechcraft piston aircraft. Following a change in ownership, Respondent continued the same underlying business operations without interruption. The location, core services, and customer base remained substantially the same, and Respondent continued to provide maintenance, inspection, and repair services for Beechcraft aircraft. The business did not pivot to a different industry, expand into unrelated services, or attempt to capitalize on any third-party brand recognition. Rather, Respondent maintained continuity with the prior operation while seeking to improve clarity and professionalism in its branding. As part of the ownership transition, the prior owner retained the "Beaver Air Services" name, necessitating the selection of a new business name. In choosing a new name, Respondent considered two primary factors. First, the new name needed to maintain continuity with the existing customer base and avoid unnecessary disruption to a long-standing business identity. Second, the name needed to accurately and clearly describe the nature of the services provided. The selected name, "Beechtec Air Services," reflects these considerations. It is a descriptive combination intended to communicate that Respondent provides technical maintenance services specifically for Beechcraft aircraft. Respondent does not service all aircraft types and does not hold itself out as a general aviation maintenance provider. Instead, Respondent's business is focused on a specific class of aircraft, and the name was chosen to reflect that specialization.

 

According to Respondent, it has never represented itself as Textron Aviation, Beechcraft, or any affiliated entity. Respondent is an independent maintenance provider. Any prior use of third-party logos on the website was not intended to imply affiliation or endorsement and has since been removed. Respondent has taken affirmative steps to ensure that its website and public-facing materials accurately reflect its independent status and avoid any potential confusion.

 

Respondent does not dispute that the disputed domain name incorporates a recognizable abbreviation of Complainant's BEECHCRAFT mark, and that a threshold finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) may be appropriate.

 

Respondent alleges that it has clear rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, because it is used in connection with a bona fide, established aviation maintenance business that provides legitimate services to customers and operates independently of Complainant.

 

According to Respondent, Complainant's assertion that Respondent is a recently created entity formed to capitalize on its mark is factually incorrect. The underlying business has existed since at least 2001 under the prior name "Beaver Air Services" and has long focused on Beechcraft aircraft. Respondent's operations represent a continuation of a well-established business, not the creation of a new entity targeting Complainant's brand.

 

Similarly, according to Respondent, the website elements cited by Complainant, including the display of aircraft manufacturer logos, were not introduced by Respondent. These elements existed on the prior owner's website and were carried over as part of the transition of the business and its digital assets. They were originally used to identify the types of aircraft serviced, not to imply authorization or affiliation. Upon becoming aware that certain elements could be interpreted differently, Respondent promptly removed or clarified such content. These actions demonstrate good faith and a proactive effort to eliminate any potential ambiguity.

 

Respondent alleges that Complainant's argument that Respondent lacks authorization is misplaced. Authorization is not required where a domain name is used descriptively to identify the subject matter of legitimate services. Respondent does not claim to be an authorized Beechcraft or Textron service center.

 

Respondent states that it satisfies the criteria set forth in Oki Data (cited above), for the following reasons.

 

First, Respondent actually offers the services at issue: it operates a physical maintenance facility specializing in the inspection, maintenance, and repair of Beechcraft piston aircraft.

 

Second, there is no "bait and switch": the products Respondent sells from its authorized dealer partners, Aero Cosmetics, Amsafe, Camguard, D'Shannon Products, G&D Aero, and JP Instruments, are not competing goods or unrelated items introduced to bait and switch internet users; they are aftermarket aviation maintenance products designed for use on Beechcraft aircraft. Respondent cites Textron Innovations Inc. v. Joerg Dogondke, FA 2151258 (Forum May 20, 2025) (applying holistic Oki Data analysis and finding legitimate interests where aftermarket products were used exclusively in connection with the trademarked goods); and Doosan Bobcat North America, Inc. v. mohit jagwani, D2024-3191 (WIPO, Oct. 14, 2024) (same).

 

Third, Respondent did not fail accurately to disclose its relationship with Complainant because of the "Authorized Dealer" language and the presence of manufacturer logos on the prior website. A careful reading of the website, reveals that the "Authorized Dealer" language referred exclusively to Respondent's authorized dealer relationships with third-party aftermarket product manufacturers: Aero Cosmetics, Amsafe, Camguard, D'Shannon Products, G&D Aero, and JP Instruments. These companies are expressly listed immediately below the designation. Respondent is in fact an authorized dealer for each of those companies. The aircraft types listed separately, Beechcraft, Bonanza, Baron, TravelAir, Maule Air, appeared in a distinct section identifying the aircraft Respondent services, not as part of the "Authorized Dealer" claim. Upon becoming aware that the prior website presentation could be interpreted as ambiguous, Respondent took prompt corrective action, removing all Complainant-related logos and revising the website to clearly distinguish between authorized dealer relationships with aftermarket suppliers and the aircraft types serviced. Respondent's current website contains a clear disclaimer of any affiliation with Complainant.

 

Respondent states that is not a competitor of Complainant in any relevant sense. Complainant is an aircraft manufacturer; Respondent is an independent maintenance provider that does not manufacture aircraft, sell new aircraft, or offer any product or service that substitutes for Complainant's offerings. Respondent's customers are, by definition, already owners of Beechcraft aircraft, existing Complainant customers seeking specialized maintenance services that Complainant itself does not provide. Respondent's business therefore supports and extends the useful life of Complainant's products rather than displacing them.

 

Respondent alleges reverse domain name hijacking. In support, it cites Textron Innovations Inc. v. Mike Brannigan / Dquery.io, FA 2095240 (Forum June 2, 2024) ("Respondent's use of the disputed domain names clearly meets the established Oki Data test: 1. He uses the site to provide services related only to Complainant's trademarked goods and no other aircraft; 2. The Website accurately discloses that Respondent has no relationship with Complainant; and 3. He is not trying to corner the market in domain names relating to the Trademark. … In light of the facts of this case, including in particular the prominent disclaimer on the Website, Complainant ought to have appreciated that it would be unable to establish both the second and third limbs under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in this proceeding.").

 

Further, says Respondent, Complainant states that "a prior UDRP was filed against this domain (FA2404002094083)." That statement is false. The case in question was not filed against <beechtec.com>. It was filed against an entirely different domain name, <twinbeech18.com>, involving a different respondent with no connection to Respondent or the instant proceeding.

 

In addition, says Respondent, the record reflects a pattern of Complainant filing UDRP complaints against independent Beechcraft and Cessna service providers whose use of descriptive domain names is plainly legitimate under the Oki Data framework. In support it cites Textron Aviation Inc. v. William Ahern / Atlantic Beechcraft Services, FA 2157839 (Forum July 8, 2025) (transfer denied; independent Beechcraft maintenance provider found to have legitimate interests); and Textron Innovations Inc. v. Joerg Dogondke, FA 2151258 (Forum May 20, 2025) (transfer denied; independent Cessna aftermarket provider found to have legitimate interests).

 

C. Additional Submissions

In its Additional Submission, Complainant's representative states: "In response to Respondent's response, I acknowledge that the information related to a 'prior UDRP filed against this domain' (referenced in Sections III.D.d and V.B. of Respondent's response) was included in this Complaint in error and would request that the Panel strike that information from the Complaint and its consideration of this matter. In all other respects, Complainant stands by its Complaint and, obviously, disagrees with the points and rebuttals raised in Respondent's response."

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark BEECHCRAFT and uses it to market airplanes and related services.

 

Complainant's registration of its mark dates back to 1963.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2025.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

Respondent is using the disputed domain name to promote its Beechcraft airplane service business, which includes supplying third-party aftermarket product, and servicing one brand of aircraft (Maule Air) not manufactured by Complainant. The resolving website initially did not clearly state that it was not affiliated with Complainant; that was corrected and the resolving website now displays a clear disclaimer.

 

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

Respondent does not contest that the disputed domain name incorporates a recognizable abbreviation of Complainant's BEECHCRAFT mark, and that a threshold finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) may be appropriate.

 

The disputed domain name incorporates the abbreviation "Beech" of Complainant's BEECHCRAFT mark, and merely adds the term "tec", together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Such changes are not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Morgan Stanley v. Nicenic.com, Inc., FA 1368093 (Forum Mar. 5, 2011) (finding <ms-ae-fund.com> confusingly similar to Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark; "Previous panels have concluded that where a disputed domain name contains a common abbreviation of a mark, confusing similarity exists"); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Brooks Sports, Inc. v. chen jiajin, FA 1930406 (Forum March 30, 2021) (finding that "adding random letters and a gTLD…fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name); see also Textron Aviation Inc. v. William Ahern / Atlantic Beechcraft Services, FA 2157839 (Forum July 8, 2025) ("The Panel finds that Complainant holds trademark rights in the BEECHCRAFT mark ..., the Domain Name [<atlanticbeech.com>] is confusingly similar to the BEECHCRAFT trademark since a Beechcraft aircraft is commonly known as a 'Beech.'").

 

The Panel notes that Complainant aptly cites Textron Aviation Inc. v. Karls Flying Service, FA 2157836 (Forum June 24, 2025), which stated: "The Panel finds that the <beech18.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the BEECHCRAFT mark as it incorporates a common and recognizable abbreviation of the BEECHCRAFT mark and adds the number '18' and the '.com' gTLD."; and Textron Aviation Inc. v. Kyle Larson / KJL Aviation Inc., FA 2157834 (Forum June 26, 2025), which stated: "The Panel finds Respondent's <twinbeech18.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's BEECHCRAFT marks, as it fully incorporates BEECH, a common abbreviation of the BEECHCRAFT mark, and adds the descriptive term 'twin' and the number 18, which differences are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's marks." 

 

The Panel also notes that Respondent states that it selected the disputed domain name precisely to suggest an association with the Beechcraft airplanes.

 

According to 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1"): "In some cases, in assessing the first element a panel may find that the broader case context (such as website content or fraudulent (phishing) emails trading off the complainant's reputation (in particular in the case of unregistered marks), or a pattern of multiple respondent domain names targeting the complainant's mark within the same proceeding), supports a finding of confusing similarity with the complainant's mark."

 

Here, Respondent's admission that it selected the disputed domain name to suggest an association with Complainant's products supports the side-by-side analysis above.

 

For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent provides evidence showing that it operates a legitimate airplane service business. It also provides evidence showing that the resolving website was basically copied from the website <beaverairservices.com>, which was the website for the predecessor of Respondent's business.

 

According to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1"), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names:

 

Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision, in particular to affirm or corroborate a party's contention.

 

This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases.

 

The Panel has accessed the Internet archive and verified that, indeed, the resolving website was basically copied from the website <beaverairservices.com>.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent fails to satisfy the criteria set forth in Oki Data (cited above); Respondent alleges the contrary.

 

It is worth citing extensively from Sub-Zero, Inc. v. Daniel Ellis / Joel Gonzalez / SEO Repair Shop / Elite Sub-Zero Repair, FA 2014882 (Forum Nov. 15, 2022):

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name because Respondent offers and promotes unauthorized refrigerator repair services at Respondent's Website that are in direct competition with services offered by Complainant's authorized third parties.

…

The content of Respondent's Website supports the statements made in the Response that Respondent operates an independent, unauthorized repair service for Complainant's SUB-ZERO refrigerators. The Panel is satisfied that Respondent's Website clearly identifies itself as independent of Complainant, both by using the disclaimer, and by the nature of the various statements made on Respondent's Website. There is no evidence to suggest that Respondent does not actually supply repair services for Complainant's products and Complainant does not assert as such, only noting that Respondent is not an authorized repair service provider for Complainant's products.

 

The doctrine of nominative fair use was articulated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions in New Kids on the Block v. News American Publishing, Inc., 971 F.2d. 302 (9th Cr. 1992), and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc .v. Tabari, 610 F.3d. 1171 (9th Cir. 2010).  In Tabari,  the plaintiffs were auto brokers who registered and used the domain names <buy-a-lexus.com> and <buyorleaselexus.com.>  The court in this case held that "momentary uncertainty" does not preclude the nominative use of another's mark in a domain name, provided that a truthful use is being made to describe the domain name registrant's business."  610 F.2. at 1179.

 

These principles have been applied by UDRP panels.  The leading decision is Oki-Data, referred to in 2.8 of the cited WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, in which the respondent was a reseller of the complainant's OKIDATA products.  The respondent registered and used the domain name <okidataparts.com> in connection with that business.  The panel in that case concluded that this use could be a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of the Policy if the following conditions were satisfied: 

*   The respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue,

*   The respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods (otherwise there is the possibility that the respondent is using the trademark in a domain name to bait consumers and then switch them to other goods),

*   The site itself must accurately disclose the respondent's relationship with the trademark owner, and

*   The respondent must not try to 'corner the market' in all relevant domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of the ability to reflect its own mark in a domain name.

 

Other panels have concluded that applying the nominative fair use doctrine could also be appropriate in cases other than those involving a reseller of branded parts, provided that the respondent operated a business genuinely revolving around the trademark owner's goods or services, see National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. v. Racing Connection/The Racin' Connection, Inc., D2007-1524 (WIPO January 28, 2008) and YETI Coolers, LLC v. Ryley Lyon / Ditec Solutions LLC. FA 1675141 (Forum July 11, 2016). The Oki Data test has also been applied for registrants offering repair services, see General Motors LLC v. Flashcraft, Inc DBA Cad Company D2011-2117 (WIPO January 30, 2012).

 

In the present case Respondent is offering SUB-ZERO repair services in San-Antonio. Complainant submits that the Oki Data conditions cannot be satisfied as unlike in Oki Data, Respondent is not an authorized repair-service provider. This is an incorrect reading of the Policy and the case law. The Oki Data standard has repeatedly been applied in the context of unauthorized resellers/repair companies. See National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. v. Racing Connection / The Racin' Connection, Inc., D2007-1524 (WIPO Jan. 28, 2008); Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Peter Lambe, D2001-1292 (WIPO June 8, 2005); and YETI Coolers, LLC v. Ryley Lyon / Ditec Solutions LLC. FA 1675141 (Forum July 11, 2016).  Indeed, there is no reason to distinguish between nominative fair use principles whether the user is authorized or unauthorized.  Either way, if the use is fair and non-confusing, it should be permitted.  The Panel notes in particular the recent decision of Sub-Zero, Inc. v. Adrian Loughlin/Factor Appliance, FA2101001927129, involving Complainant, in which the then respondent was able to satisfy the Oki Data test notwithstanding it was not an authorized repair-service provider of Complainant.

 

The Panel finds that the first, third and fourth factors in the Oki Data test are clearly satisfied by Respondent. Respondent is offering repair services for SUB-ZERO refrigerators in San Antonio; the Respondent's Website clearly discloses Respondent's (lack of) relationship with Complainant and nothing on the website suggests an affiliation beyond the fact that Respondent repairs Complainant's products. While Respondent has registered two domain names incorporating Complainant's SUB-ZERO mark, Respondent has consented to the transfer of one of these names and there is nothing in the record that suggests a broad approach by Respondent of deliberately trying to corner the market in domain names to deprive Complainant of the opportunity to reflect its mark in a domain name.

 

It remains necessary to consider the second factor. Complainant submits that because Respondent's Website states "We only work on Sub Zero refrigerators. Very rarely, we will work on other high-end brands, but our business growth has been built on focus" that the second Oki Data factor is not satisfied because Respondent is using the Domain Name to promote repair services for third party appliance brands and not exclusively for Complainant appliances.

 

The exact wording of the second factor in Oki Data is "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". In YETI Coolers, LLC v. Ryley Lyon / Ditec Solutions LLC. FA 1675141 (Forum July 11, 2016), the panel (being the same panel as in Oki Data) provided more context in respect of the second factor below (emphases added):

"With respect to the second factor, Complainant alleges that Respondent's handles are not designed exclusively for use on YETI cups, but rather can also be used on other brands of cups (such as Rtic, Sic Cup and more).  That, though, does not implicate the policy underlying this factor, which is to avoid "bait and switch" scams.  Here, the nature of the handles is that they can be used for other brands of cups and tumblers as well.  In that context, Respondent has a legitimate interest in using the term "YETI" in the Disputed Domain Names in order to communicate that the handles can be used as an accessory for YETI (and other brands) cups. Cf. Nikon, Inc. v. Technilab, D2000-1774 (WIPO Feb. 26, 2001) (holding use of Nikon-related domain names to sell Nikon and competitors' cameras was not a legitimate use). Complainant has not established that Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Names constitutes a bait and switch or that it otherwise increases the probability that, having been drawn to the Disputed Domain Names at issue by the Complainant's trademark, consumers will be deceived into purchasing alternative competing products or services."

 

In TT Manufacturing Enterprises, Inc., ITT Corporation v. Douglas Nicoll, Differential Pressure Instruments, Inc. D2008-0936 (WIPO November 7, 2008) the Panel took a similar approach as set out below in considering the second factor, noting that it must be interpreted in line with the underlying policy behind the requirement, being to avoid bait and switch scams:

The more problematic of the Oki Data criteria, as applied to this proceeding, is the requirement that the Domain Names be used to sell only the trademarked goods. The Respondents' website includes a link to the Respondents' former Detroit Switch website, on which the Respondent DPI resold "new surplus" Detroit Switches. The link is not prominent, however; it is listed on a "Link Directory" page within the Respondents' website. Moreover, the Complainants have not demonstrated that Detroit Switches are products that compete with the ITT Barton devices or, indeed, with any products now sold by the Complainants. Thus, the Complainants have not established the risk of "bait and switch" tactics. The Respondents' use of the Domain Names for the Respondents' website is consistent with their stated purpose of reselling ITT Barton devices and related testing and warranty services. The single link to the Respondents' former Detroit Switch website is, in the Panel's view, insufficient to change the character of the Respondents' website as one concerned overwhelmingly with surplus ITT Barton products. This reflects a legitimate reseller's interest under the Oki Data test. See Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Del Fabbro Laurent, WIPO Case No. D2004-0481 ("Clearly designated links to websites, under which other brands or products are offered, cannot be considered as the offering of other brands or products under the Domain Names, provided they take up only a minor part of the site and the overall impression of that site remains that of a site offering corresponding goods.")

 

It is necessary to consider the underlying policy when deciding whether the second factor is satisfied, namely to avoid "bait and switch" scams (for example if Respondent was using Complainant's trade mark to advertise a general refrigerator repair services at Respondent's Website).  Respondent's Website promotes Respondent's business offering specialist repair services for SUB-ZERO products. It does not refer to any other brand of refrigerator company nor does it link to any other websites where Respondent advertises expertise in repairing any refrigerator brands other than those of Complainant. While Respondent, as stated on Respondent's Website (not highlighted in any way) may rarely work on other high-end brands, this in no way changes the "character" of the Respondents' Website and this is not a case where the Domain Name is used for a "bait and switch" exercise. Respondent's use of the Domain Name for the Respondent's Website is consistent with the stated purpose which is to advertise that Respondent offers specialized repair services for Complainant's appliances in the San Antonio area.

 

It is also worth noting that Complainant does not directly offer out-of-warranty repair services, it only authorizes third parties to offer such services. Thus, Respondent does not compete directly with Complainant, it only competes with Complainant's authorized repair services, who, according to the evidence in the record, do not use domain names containing the SUB-ZERO mark.

 

In summary it appears that Respondent operates a legitimate business repairing Complainant's appliances and there is no evidence that that Respondent is seeking to take advantage of any similarity between the Domain Name and SUB-ZERO Mark beyond that which arises from a truthful use of the SUB-ZERO Mark to describe the services that Respondent's business provides.

 

The Panel notes that the present proceeding raises complex legal and factual issues that seem ill-suited to resolution through the Policy. Such proceedings are better resolved in a national court of law which has the benefit of a full range of evidentiary tools such as discovery, witness testimony and cross-examination. The Policy is designed to deal with clear cases of cybersquatting, see IAFT International LLC v. MANAGING DIRECTOR / EUTOPIAN HOLDINGS, FA 1577032 (Forum Oct. 9, 2014) ("The objectives of the Policy are limited -- designed to obviate the need for time-consuming and costly litigation in relatively clear cases of cyber-squatting -- and not intended to thwart every sort of questionable business practice imaginable).   Respondent here meets the Oki Data criteria and Complainant has failed to demonstrate that Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name.

 

The Panel finds Complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

It is also worth citing extensively from Textron Aviation Inc. v. William Ahern / Atlantic Beechcraft Services, FA 2157839 (Forum July 8, 2025), cited by Respondent:

 

Complainant contends that Oki Data only applies when an "authorized" sales or service agent of trademarked goods can use the trademark at issue in its domain name and advocates that Respondent does not meet all of the Oki Data factors, especially because Complainant does not know where Respondent sources its Beechcraft parts and so Respondent is not only selling aircraft parts of unknown progeny and authenticity, but also uses the site to advertise/sell unauthorized (i.e., not genuine) service for Beechcraft aircraft and there is no disclaimer whatsoever on the website located at the Domain Name that indicates Respondent makes zero attempt to distance itself from Complainant, clarify the nature of its relationship with Complainant or publicize that its part are in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Complainant. Complainant also points to Respondent's use of its BEECHCRAFT logo at the website located at the Domain Name. 

 

Oki Data concerned a very well-known manufacturer of computer accessories. The Respondent was an authorized Oki Data repair center that registered the domain name <okidataparts.com> to offer its repair services to the public. Oki Data brought the UDRP dispute against its authorized dealer, and Respondent argued that it was a fair use to use the disputed domain name because there was no other way to inform the public that it sells and repairs Oki Data. 

...

Complainant's assertion that Oki Data applies only when the respondent is an authorized dealer is misplaced. Some Panels have applied Oki Data where the Respondent was not an authorized dealer, for example. See Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Auto Shivuk, D2005-0447 (WIPO October 14, 2014).

 

Whether Oki Data applies in this matter, it is the Panel's view that it does not, especially because the screenshot Complainant provided of Respondent's website located at the Domain Name provides links to other aircraft manufacturers like Raytheon, Prat & Whitney, and Continental Motors, so Respondent is featuring other aircraft manufacturers on the website located at the Domain Name.

 

Nevertheless, in considering the parties' evidence, on balance, the Panel finds that the Respondent has rebutted that it is operating a legitimate business since as evidenced by its corporate registration with the Florida Secretary of State and is making offering bona fide services and, therefore, Respondent is commonly known as Atlantic Beechcraft Services and appears to be offering bona fide services.

 

Whether Respondent's registration and use of the Domain Name is a fair one is outside the scope of this proceeding, as further discussed below.

 

The Panel fully agrees with those analyses and, in its view, the facts of the instant case are essentially the same as the facts in the cases cited above.

 

The resolving website does promote products that are not made by Complainant, and does provide service for airplanes not made by Complainant. However, this does not necessarily imply that the second Oki Data criterion is not satisfied. As stated in the cited cases, the second Oki Data criterion is "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."

 

Here, Respondent is not selling the trademarked goods, which are airplanes. It is selling services related to the trademarked goods.

 

It appears from the record that, while Complainant manufactures aircraft, it does not service them: it licenses authorized service centers. While Respondent is not one of Complainant's authorized service centers, it is nevertheless operating a legitimate business, and the Panel must take this into account.

 

It is worth citing extensively from Doosan Bobcat North America, Inc. v. mohit jagwani, engine world usa, D2024-3191 (WIPO, Oct. 14, 2024):

 

A key basis for the Oki Data Test is that the defense of nominative trademark use requires a respondent's use of a complainant's trademark to be "only so much as is necessary for […] identification" of that respondent's goods or services. See Project Management Institute v. CMN.com, WIPO Case No. D2013-2035, citing New Kids on the Block v. News American Publishing, Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992) and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Tabari, 610 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2010).

 

One may reasonably criticize the conduct the Respondent engaged in prior to hearing from the Complainant. The BOBCAT mark appeared prominently in the website header, leaving visitors possibly unsure whether they were being presented with actual BOBCAT products or aftermarket parts. One had to read carefully and make some assumptions to ascertain that the Respondent was offering aftermarket parts. But 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.

 

After the December 11, 2023 letter, the Respondent made certain notable changes to its website to seek to address the Complainant's concerns. The Panel credits these activities as demonstrating the bona fide nature of the Respondent's offering of goods – there is no dispute that the Respondent is indeed using the disputed domain name to offer aftermarket parts for Bobcat machinery. After hearing from the Complainant, the Respondent changed the website header to remove 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. Overall, the Respondent has not engaged in the typical sorts of actions one sees with domain name registrants accused of bad faith cybersquatting.

 

It is also worth extensively citing Textron Innovations Inc. v. Joerg Dogondke, FA 2151258 (Forum May 20, 2025), cited by Respondent:

 

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.

 

On the balance of the evidence before it, the Panel finds that, by analogy to the cases cited above, Respondent appears to be engaged in a good-faith aftermarket service business for genuine Beechcraft airplanes (which service includes adding third-party products to Complainant's airplanes). This gives rise to a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name in the sense of the Policy, which, it must be stressed, is intended to sanction only obvious cases of cybersquatting.

 

The Panel finds (as did the panel in the cited Sub Zero case) that the question of whether or not Respondent's use of Complainant's mark is legitimate with respect to applicable trademark, and/or unfair competition, and/or consumer protection laws, falls outside of the scope of the present proceedings, and is best resolved in national courts. See Happy State Bank d/b/a GoldStar Trust Company v. Ronny Yakov / CrowdPay.us, Inc. FA 1802648 (Forum Sept. 27, 2018); see also Abbott Labs. v. Patel, FA 740337 (Forum Aug. 15, 2006) (holding that assertions of trademark infringement are "entirely misplaced and totally inappropriate for resolution" in a domain name dispute proceeding because the UDRP Policy applies only to abusive cybersquatting and nothing else); see also Stevenson Indus., Inc. v. CPAP-PRO Online, FA 105778 (Forum Apr. 25, 2002) ("If the existence of [rights or legitimate interests] turns on resolution of a legitimate trademark dispute, then Respondent must prevail, because such disputes are beyond the scope of this proceeding.").

 

For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proof for this element of the Policy. 

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Since the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proving the second element of the Policy, it need not analyze the third element. See Healthy Pets, Inc. d/b/a Pet Health Solutions v. Kwangpyo Kim, FA 1976154 (Forum Jan. 24, 2022) ("[S]ince Complainant must prove all three elements of Policy ¶ 4(a) under the Policy, Complainant's failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining elements unnecessary.").

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:

 

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.

 

Respondent invokes this provision when it requests the Panel to find that Complainant is using the Policy in a bad faith attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name.

 

The general conditions for a finding of bad faith on the part of Complainant are well stated in Smart Design LLC v. Carolyn Hughes, D2000-0993 (WIPO, October 18, 2000): "Clearly, the launching of an unjustifiable Complaint with malice aforethought qualifies, as would the pursuit of a Complaint after the Complainant knew it to be insupportable."

 

These conditions are confirmed in Goldline International, Inc. v. Gold Line,  D2000-1151 (WIPO, January 4, 2001) and Sydney Opera House Trust v. Trilynx Pty. Limited, D2000-1224 (WIPO, October 31, 2000) (where the condition is stated as "the respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the respondent's right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the complainant in the face of such knowledge"), which in turn cites Plan Express Inc. v. Plan Express, D2000-0565 (WIPO, July 17, 2000).

 

As noted above, the Panel has accepted Complainant's request to strike from the Complaint the incorrect allegation that there had been a prior UDRP dispute involving the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel will not consider Respondent's allegations regarding that matter.

 

There is nothing in the record to indicate malice on the part of the Complainant; further, as can be seen from the detailed discussion above, it cannot be said that Complainant knew (or should have known) that its case was insupportable, in particular because, when the Complaint was filed, the resolving website did not display a clear disclaimer.

 

Respondent makes much of the fact that Complainant has filed numerous UDRP complaints, not all of which have been successful. Complainant is of course entitled to file UDRP complaints, so that cannot be held against it. The Panel notes that RDNH has been found in only one out of the some 75 UDRP cases filed by Complainant with Forum. 

 

That one case (Textron Innovations Inc. v. Mike Brannigan / Dquery.io, FA 2095240 (Forum June 2, 2024)) must be distinguished from the instant case: in that one case, respondent was an American Bonanza Society Instructor under its "Beech Pilot Proficiency Program", offering flight instruction services, and the resolving website contained a clear disclaimer before the complaint was submitted. Thus the facts in that one case are different from the facts in the instant case.

 

The Panel notes, obiter dictum, that Respondent makes much of the fact that the Complaint mistakenly alleged that there had been a prior UDRP proceeding involving the disputed domain name. But that allegation was not made to argue bad faith registration and use: it was made in the section "Other Legal Proceedings", see the discussion above under the section "Preliminary Issue: Previous UDRP Proceeding".

 

As noted in that section of the instant decision, the reference to the prior UDRP case appears to be a copy-paste error and the Panel would have found that it was not a deliberate attempt unduly to influence the Panel.

 

For all the above reasons, the Panel does not find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

DECISION

The Panel finds that there has not been Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

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 <beechtec.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: April 17, 2026