Domain name - Domain name dispute resolution policy - U.S. Trademark - Identical - Confusingly similar - Legitimate use - Legitimate interest - Bad faith registration - Bad faith use. 

Complainant owns numerous registered trademarks that consist of the words “American Airlines”.  One of these trademark registrations dates back as early as 1934.  Respondent registered the domain name, AMERICANAIRLINE.COM in 1997.

Held, Name Transferred to Complainant.

The domain name in question is effectively identical and certainly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered and well-known trademarks.

Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.  Respondent is not even utilizing the site in connection with air transportation related services.  Instead, as evidence submitted by the Complainant proves, the Respondent is attempting to divert air travellers to another unrelated site.  This willful attempt to attract users to an alternative site is evidence of bad faith.

Policies referred to

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, adopted August 26, 1999

Cases referred to 

Hewlett-Packard Company v. Full System, FA94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum, May 22, 2000)
Nabisco Brands v. The Patron Group, Inc.,   D2000-0032 (WIPO Feb. 23, 2000)
Marriott International v. Café au lait, FA93670 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Mar. 13, 2000)

Panel Decision referred to

Marks Johnson, Panelist:- 

The domain name at issue is “AMERICANAIRLINE.COM”, registered with
Network Solutions, Inc (“NSI”).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The
Forum") electronically on 05/26/2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on 05/26/2000. 

On 06/05/2000, NSI confirmed by e?mail to The Forum that the domain name
“AMERICANAIRLINE.COM” is registered with NSI and that the Respondent is
the current registrant of the name.  NSI has verified that Respondent is bound by
the Network Solutions Service Agreement Version 4.0 and has thereby agreed to
resolve domain?name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with
ICANN’s UDRP.

On 06/05/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of 06/26/2000
by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to
Respondent via email, post and fax, and to all entities and persons listed on
Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts by email. 

On 06/26/2000, having received no Response from Respondent, using the same
contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, The
Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. 

On 06/27/2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by
a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson
as Panelist(s).

Having reviewed the communications records in the case file, the Administrative
Panel (the "Panel") finds that The Forum has discharged its responsibility under
Paragraph 2(a) of the Uniform Rules "to employ reasonably available means
calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue
its Decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the
ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, The Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules
and principles of law that the panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any
Response from the Respondent.

RELIEF SOUGHT

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the
Respondent to the Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered a domain name that
is identical to and confusingly similar to its marks registered for and in use by the
Complainant.  Further, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights
or legitimate interests to the domain name, and that the respondent has registered
and is using the domain name in bad faith. 

B.     Respondent

The Respondent submitted no response in this matter.

FINDINGS

The Complainant owns numerous registered trademarks that consist of the words
“American Airlines.”  One of these trademark registrations dates back as early as
1934. 

The Respondent registered the domain name “AMERICANAIRLINE.COM” on
08/11/1997.

When the Respondent’s website is accessed, the user is linked to a third party site,
www.mail.com, offering email solutions for corporations, ISPs, and advertisers. 
On 09/03/1999, the Complainant sent the Respondent correspondence requesting
that the Respondent cancel the name and cease infringing on the Complainant’s
trademarks. 

DISCUSSION 

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy (“Policy”)
directs that the complainant must prove each of the following three elements to
support a claim that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar
to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; 

(2) the 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.

The Complainant has offered exhibits in support of its claims, whereas the
Respondent has submitted no response in the matter.  The Respondent’s failure to
dispute the allegations of the Complainant permits the inference that the
Complainant’s allegations are true.  Further, the Respondent’s failure to respond
permits the inference that the Respondent knows that its website is misleading and
is intentionally diverting business from the Complainant.  See Hewlett?Packard
Company v. Full System, FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000). 
Applying the Policy to the issue in this case furthers these inferences.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The domain name in question is effectively identical and certainly confusingly similar
to the Complainant’s registered and well?known trademarks. 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent does not assert any rights or legitimate interests to the domain
name in question. 

The name does not reflect a name that the Respondent is commonly known by. 
Policy  4(c)(ii).  Furthermore, the Respondent is not using the domain name in
connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.  The Respondent is not
even utilizing the site in connection with air transportation related services.  The
Respondent is not making a legitimate use of the domain name; instead, it is trying
to divert air travelers to another unrelated site.  See Nabisco Brands v. The
Patron Group, Inc., D2000?0032 (WIPO Feb. 23, 2000). 

Bad Faith

The Respondent does not deny that its actions were taken in bad faith.

Intentionally trying to divert Internet users to alternative sites is evidence of bad
faith.  Policy  4(b)(iv).  The Respondent’s continuing use of the site, with
knowledge that he had no right to use the Complainant’s mark, reveals a willful
attempt to attract users to an alternative site and cause confusion with the
Complainant’s mark.  Policy  4(b)(iv).  See Marriott Int’l v. Café au lait, FA
93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum March 13, 2000). 

Based on the preceding argument, the panel finds that the Respondent registered
and is using the domain name in bad faith.

DECISION

Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), it is
the decision of the panelist that the requested relief be granted.  Accordingly, for all
of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name,
“AMERICANAIRLINE.COM”, be transferred from the Respondent to the
Complainant.

Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson
Dated: July 11, 2000