Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is American Airlines, Inc., DFW Airport, TX, USA ("Complainant") represented by Kay Lyn Schwartz, Gardere & Wynne, L.L.P.. The Respondent is John Zuccarini, Andalusia, PA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "amaricanairlines.com" registered with CORE.

The Panelist certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as the panelist in this proceeding.

Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on September 27, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 26, 2000.

On 10-2-00, CORE confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "amaricanairlines.com" is registered with CORE and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. CORE has verified that Respondent is bound by the CORE registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On October 3, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 23, 2000 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 postmaster@amaricanairlines.com by e-mail.

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 October 31, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, 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.

The Complainant requests that the domain name(s) be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

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.

The Complainant further contends that Respondent has registered the domain name, knowing that the registration and the manner in which it was intended to be used would directly or indirectly infringe the legal rights of a third party.

B. Respondent

The Respondent submitted no response in this proceeding before the Panel. Accordingly, all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the Complaint will be deemed true.

"American Airlines" has been used as a trademark since at least 1934. Complainant is one of the nation’s largest airlines, and has acquired a nationwide reputation for quality goods and services and has accumulated substantial public goodwill. In the course of its business, Complainant has acquired extensive rights in numerous trade names, trademarks, and service marks, including the mark "American Airlines," and related trade dress used in connection with, among other things, transportation services.

The Respondent has registered numerous domain names and has been the subject of multiple law suits and ICANN proceedings.

When an Internet user attempts to access Respondent’s web site, amaricanairlines.com, the user is presented with a variety of "clickthrough" advertising links to other companies for which the Respondent receives monetary compensation per "click."

Respondent acquired the domain name to profit from a user who may unintentionally misspell Complainant’s trade name when attempting to access Complainant’s web site.

Complainant notified Respondent, via certified mail, on July 11, 2000, that Respondent should cease and desist from any use of "AMERICAN AIRLINES" in any form and should cancel its reservation of the Internet address amaricanairlines.com. A follow-up correspondence on the same subject was sent on August 4, 2000.

Conduct such as the Respondent’s, in the face of the implementation of the ICANN domain name rules under which this pleading is filed and the enactment of the Federal Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(d) (Public Law 106-113), is an egregious abuse of the Internet and the rules governing its usage.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") requires that the 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 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 domain name in question is certainly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. The Respondent has misspelled "american" with "amarican." This misspelling does not create a distinct mark and is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s marks. See State Farm v. Try Harder & Co., FA 94730 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 15, 2000) (finding that the domain name <statfarm.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark "State Farm").

Based on Policy paragraph 4.c. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the infringing domain name. There is no evidence of Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Policy paragraph 4.c.(i). Respondent was not authorized to use Complainant’s marks for any of the period during which he has registered the domain name at issue. Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has never been commonly known by the domain name at issue and has no legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name. Policy paragraph 4.c.(iii). The domain name at issue is not, nor could it be contended to be, the nickname of Respondent or other member of his family or in any other way identified with or related to a legitimate interest of Respondent. Policy paragraph 4.c.(ii).

The Respondent is commonly known as a "typo domain name pirate", registering domain names comprising of misspelled variations on well-known trademarks. He has been a party in numerous UDRP actions. Three previous panel decisions found the Respondent to have registered and used the domain names in bad faith. See Bama Rags, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, d/b/a/ Cupcake Confidential, FA 94380 and FA 94381 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2000) (finding bad faith based on registration and commercial use of "typo" versions of the trademark DAVE MATTHEWS BAND); Hewlett-Packard Company v. John Zuccarini, FA 94454 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 7, 2000) (finding bad faith based on registration and use of "typo" version of the trademark HEWLETT-PACKARD); Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. vs. John Zuccarini, a/k/a The Cupcake Patrol, a/k/a The Country Walk, a/k/a Cupcake Party, D2000-0330 (WIPO June 7, 2000) (finding bad faith based on registration and use of "typo" versions of the trademarks BRITANNICA and ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA).

Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct of registering domain names in order to prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name. Policy paragraph 4.b.(ii). Thus, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), it is the decision of the panel that the requested relief be granted.

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name "amaricanairlines.com" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.