DECISION

 

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation v. Kelvin Samuel / Kelvin global and exchange

Claim Number: FA2607002235799

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Michael Justus, Florida, USA. Respondent is Kelvin Samuel / Kelvin global and exchange ("Respondent"), Nigeria.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <gulfstreamaerospace.site>, 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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 29, 2026; Forum received payment on July 29, 2026.

 

On July 30, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <gulfstreamaerospace.site> 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 3, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 24, 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@gulfstreamaerospace.site. Also on August 3, 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.

 

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

 

On August 25, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Complainant is a world-leading aircraft company. Complainant has used the official trade name and mark GULFSTREAM AEROSPACE CORPORATION for many years. Complainant and its predecessors have used the well-known GULFSTREAM name and mark since at least 1959 in connection with airplanes and related products and services. As a result of Complainant's long and extensive use and registration of the GULFSTREAM mark, the USPTO has determined that Complainant's GULFSTREAM trademark is a famous mark. Complainant holds rights in the GULFSTREAM mark, inter alia, through its USPTO registrations (e.g., Reg. No. 1,162,644); registered July 28, 1981 in Class 12 ). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GULFSTREAM mark and GULFSTREAM AEROSPACE trade name, as it incorporates the mark and name in their entirety with the mere addition of the ".site" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has neither authorized nor licensed Respondent to use the GULFSTREAM mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Moreover, the disputed domain name connects to an inactive page.

 

iii) The obvious copycat domain here is unlawful per se. By registering the domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark, Respondent acted in bad faith. Specifically, Respondent deliberately registered the disputed domain name that features Complainant's famous GULFSTREAM mark. In addition, Respondent's non-usage of the disputed domain name also constitutes bad faith because it is currently parked or inactive. Finally, using a WHOIS privacy service may contribute to a finding of bad faith registration and use.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on July 10, 2025.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the GULFSTREAM mark, inter alia, through its USPTO registrations (e.g., Reg. No. 1,162,644, registered July 28, 1981, in Class 12).

 

3. The USPTO has determined that Complainant's GULFSTREAM trademark is a famous mark.

 

4. The disputed domain name resolves to an error page.

 

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 Overview 3.1 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

Complainant asserts rights in the GULFSTREAM mark, inter alia, through its USPTO registrations (e.g., Reg. No. 1,162,644, registered July 28, 1981, in Class 12). A USPTO trademark registration is sufficient to establish rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has provided evidence of its registrations for the GULFSTREAM mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the GULFSTREAM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name, <gulfstreamaerospace.site>, is confusingly similar to its GULFSTREAM mark and GULFSTREAM AEROSPACE trade name, as it incorporates the mark and name in its entirety with the mere addition of the ".site" gTLD.

 

The Panel observes that the addition of a descriptive term and a gTLD does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel notes that the disputed domain name merely adds the descriptive term "aerospace", which is a part of Complainant's trade name, and the ".site" gTLD, and thus finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GULFSTREAM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the WHOIS data lists "Kelvin Samuel / Kelvin global and exchange" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Further, Complainant contends that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to an error page. The resolution of a disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's widely known trademark to an inactive page fails to constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the foregoing. Collectively, these factors substantiate the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has failed to file a response or attempt by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that the notoriety and distinctive qualities of Complainant's marks demonstrate that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith to benefit from and trade off the goodwill and consumer recognition that Complainant had created in its marks. Respondent's registration and passive holding of the disputed domain name demonstrate bad faith.

 

The Panel observes that the passive holding of a domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sang Im / Private Registration, FA 1522801 (Forum Nov. 19, 2013) (holding that because the respondent's website contained no content related to the domain name and instead generated the error message "Error 400, Bad Request," the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that in determining whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration, satisfies paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must consider all the circumstances of the respondent's conduct, and a finding of bad faith may be made where those circumstances show that the passive holding amounts to bad faith use).

 

The particular circumstances considered by the Panel in this case include the following:

 

i) Complainant is one of the world's leading aircraft companies. It has used the official trade name and mark GULFSTREAM AEROSPACE CORPORATION for many years. Complainant and its predecessors have used the well-known GULFSTREAM name and mark since at least 1959 in connection with airplanes and related products and services. As a result of Complainant's long and extensive use and registration of the GULFSTREAM mark, the USPTO has determined that Complainant's GULFSTREAM trademark is a famous mark; and

 

ii) Respondent has failed to provide any evidence of any actual or contemplated bona fide use of the disputed domain name.

 

In light of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant and its marks in light of the obvious copycat domain name and the notoriety of Complainant's mark.

 

Given the notoriety of Complainant's GULFSTREAM mark and Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name being identical to Complainant's trade name "GULFSTREAM AEROSPACE," the Panel infers that Respondent was aware of Complainant's rights in the mark at the time of registration. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <gulfstreamaerospace.site> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: August 25, 2026