Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v.
Vertical Axis Inc.
Claim Number: FA0311000212653
is Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. (“Complainant”)
represented by Dr. Engel Tamas, of Ormai es Tarsai CMS Cameron McKenna Ugyvedi Iroda Karolyi Mihaly
u.12, H-1053, Budapest, Hungary.
Respondent is Vertical Axis, Inc.
(“Respondent”) represented by Ari Goldberger, of EsqWire.com Law Firm, 35
Cameo Drive, Cherry Hill, NJ 08003.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
domain name at issue is <malev.com>,
registered with The Registry At Info
Avenue d/b/a IA Registry.
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
Hill as Panelist.
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on November 20, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on November 20, 2003.
November 21, 2003, The Registry At Info Avenue d/b/a IA Registry confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <malev.com> is registered
with The Registry At Info Avenue d/b/a
IA Registry and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. The Registry At Info Avenue d/b/a IA Registry has verified that
Respondent is bound by the The Registry At Info Avenue d/b/a IA Registry registration agreement and has thereby agreed to
resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with
ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
November 25, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of December 15, 2003 by which Respondent could file a Response to the
Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all
entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical,
administrative and billing contacts, and to firstname.lastname@example.org by e-mail.
deficient Response was received on December 16, 2003.
On December 30, 2003, pursuant to Complainant’s request
to have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Complainant registered its MALÉV
"word" mark with the Hungarian Patent and Trademark Office and
registered its Malév Hungarian Airlines
"colour label" mark in another 23 countries. Complainant owns and operates Malév
Hungarian Airlines Ltd. located in Budapest, Hungary.
is using a domain name that is confusingly similar / identical to Complainant’s
MALÉV mark in order to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website, which is
filled with advertisements and links to competing hotel and travel
services. Respondent does not have
rights or legitimate interest under the Policy.
fame of Complainant’s MALÉV mark and the widespread reputation of Complainant’s
Hungarian Airlines permit the inference that Respondent knowingly included the
word “malev” in its domain name; using Complainant’s MALÉV mark in order to
attract Internet users that would be seeking to access Complainant’s services
world wide. This is evidence of bad
faith registration and use under the Policy.
Although Respondent disputes the factual allegations raised in the
Complaint having registered the domain name Malev (the “Disputed Domain”) in
good faith, Respondent, nevertheless, stipulates to an immediate transfer of
the Disputed Domain to Complainant, a result that Respondent has intended ever
since it received notice of the Complaint.
Complainant registered the Disputed Domain without any knowledge
of Complainant or its trademark for MALEV.
Respondent viewed the domain name as based on the word “MALE” followed
by the letter “V” which is often used as an abbreviation for “virtual,” the
resultant combination being “MALE Virtual.” Respondent’s intent was to use the Disputed Domain in connection
with an affiliate program in which it generates revenue through paid
Upon receipt of the Complaint, Respondent asked its counsel to
advise Complainant that it would transfer the Disputed Domain to Complainant
and sought no compensation. On December
1, 2003, counsel for Respondent, Ari Goldberger, emailed counsel for
Complainant, Dr. Engel Tamas, advising that Respondent wished to transfer the
Disputed Domain to Respondent in exchange for termination of the Complaint. This offer was not accepted by Complainant.
denies that it registered the Disputed Domain in bad faith since it had no
knowledge of Complainant or its mark when it registered the Disputed
Domain. Respondent denies that it lacks
a legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain, having registered it because it
formed the compound term MALE V (or male virtual). Nevertheless, Respondent stipulates that the Disputed Domain be
transferred to Respondent.
The panel will not make any findings of
fact, for the reasons explained below.
The first issue to be decided by this Panel is a
procedural issue, namely whether or not to admit the Response, which was
received one day late. In accordance
with Rules 10(b) and 10(c), the Panel extends the deadline for the Response and
admits the Response filed on December 16, 2003. A precedent can be found in Univ. of Alberta v. Katz, D2000-0378 (WIPO June 22, 2000),
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a
complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance
with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems
In this case, the parties have both asked
for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle
governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds
that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec
infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either
less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this
case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to
recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or
of compliance (or not) with the Policy.
The same conclusion was reached by the
Panel in Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. - Cayman Web Dev.,
FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Jan.
9, 2003) and in Alstyle Apparel/Active Wear v. Schwab, FA 170616
(Nat. Arb. Forum, Sept. 5, 2003).
Given the common request of the parties,
it is Ordered that the <malev.com > domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: January 13, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Here to return to our Home Page
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page