Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Aerovias Nacionales De Colombia S.A.
Avianca v. Azim Barodawala
Claim Number: FA0206000114671
PARTIES
Complainant
is Aerovias Nacionales De Colombia S. A.
Avianca, Barranquilla, COLUMBIA (“Complainant”) represented by Luz Helena Adarve-Gomez, of Cardenas & Cardenas Abogados. Respondent is Azim Barodawala, Coconut Grove, FL, USA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <avianca.com>,
registered with All West Communications,
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.
James
A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on June 21, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on June 24, 2002.
On
June 26, 2002, All West Communications, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum
that the domain name <avianca.com>
is registered with All West Communications, Inc. and that Respondent is the
current registrant of the name. All
West Communications, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the All West
Communications, Inc. 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”).
On
June 27, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of July 17,
2002 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@avianca.com by e-mail.
Having
received no formal 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
July 25, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James
A. Carmody, Esq., 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 Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “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 Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
The
<avianca.com> domain name is identical to Complainant's AVIANCA mark.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent registered and used the
disputed domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
failed to submit a formal Response.
FINDINGS
Complainant owns numerous trademarks for
AVIANCA throughout the world including, Germany (Reg. No. 890762), Argentina
(Reg. No.1027208),
Bolivia (Reg. No. 47351-C), Brazil (Reg. No. 6100392), Costa
Rica (Reg. No. 52915), Cuba (Reg. No. 116902), Chile (Reg. No. 495686),
Ecuador
(Reg. No. 99-94) and many others.
Complainant uses its mark in relation to passenger and cargo airline
services. Complainant currently
operates a website at <avianca.com.co>.
Complainant is well-known throughout the entire Latin American world,
including Southern Florida where Respondent is domiciled.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
name on November 4, 2001. Respondent
registered the disputed domain name then proceeded to sell the right to use it
to a third-party for $70,000.
Respondent has no license to use Complainant’s mark.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of 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 applicable.”
In view
of Respondent's failure to submit a formal Response, the Panel shall decide
this administrative proceeding on the basis of
the Complainant's undisputed
representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and
draw such inferences it
considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of
the Rules.
Paragraph
4(a) of the 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; and
(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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it has
rights in the AVIANCA mark because it owns a trademark for AVIANCA in various
countries throughout
the world.
Furthermore, Respondent’s domain name <avianca.com> is
identical to Complainant’s AVIANCA mark because it incorporates Complainant’s
entire mark and merely adds that generic top-level
domain name “.com.” The addition of a generic top-level domain
is irrelevant when deciding whether a domain name is identical. See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000)
(finding <pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the
generic top-level domain
(gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not
relevant); see also Sporty's Farm
L.L.C. vs. Sportsman's Market, Inc., [2000] USCA2 33; 202 F.3d 489 (2d Cir. 2000), cert.
denied, 530 U.S. 1262 (2000), ("For consumers to buy things or
gather information on the Internet, they need an easy way to find particular
companies
or brand names.
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent
is using the <avianca.com> domain name to divert Internet users
interested in Complainant to an unconnected website run by a company called
“Despegar.com.” The use of a domain
name, identical to Complainant’s mark, to divert Internet users to an
unconnected website is not a bona fide offering
of goods or services pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc.,
FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s commercial
use of the domain name to confuse and divert Internet
traffic is not a legitimate
use of the domain name); see also Big
Dog Holdings, Inc. v. Day, FA 93554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2000) (finding
no legitimate use when Respondent was diverting consumers to its own website by
using Complainant’s trademarks).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) because it
acquired the
domain name primarily for the purpose of renting it. As soon as Respondent gained possession of
the domain name registration of <avianca.com> he immediately gave
third-party, Despegar.com, the rights to use the disputed domain name for the
amount of $70,000. If Respondent’s only
use of a domain name is to sell or rent it for profit then Respondent is not
considered to be using the domain
name in connection with a bona fide offering
of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate
noncommercial or
fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See J. Paul Getty Trust v. Domain 4 Sale & Co., FA 95262 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2000) (finding rights or legitimate interests do not exist
when one has made no use of the websites
that are located at the domain names
at issue, other than to sell the domain names for profit); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork,
D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding Respondent’s conduct purporting to
sell domain name suggests it has no legitimate use);
see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. High Perf. Networks,
Inc., FA 95083 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (finding no rights or
legitimate interests where the Respondent registered the domain
name with the
intention of selling the domain name).
Respondent
is known to the Panel only as Azim Barodawala.
Respondent presented no evidence that it owns any trademarks or service
marks for AVIANCA or <avianca.com> and therefore has not
established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA
96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have
rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known
by the mark); see also
Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union
Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate
interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and
never applied
for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name).
The
Panel finds that Policy ¶4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent was on notice of Complainant’s
rights in the AVIANCA mark when it registered the <avianca.com>
domain name because Respondent is domiciled in Miami, Florida where
Complainant’s airline is well-known.
Respondent has rented the domain name out to a third-party for a
considerable amount of money. It can be
inferred from this behavior that Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights in the
AVIANCA mark when it registered the disputed
domain name. Registration of a domain name identical to
Complainant’s mark, despite knowledge of Complainant’s rights, is evidence of
bad faith
registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith,
[2002] USCA9 115; 279
F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (finding that "[w]here an
alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to another, one can
infer an intent to confuse"); see also Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr.
17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive
knowledge of a commonly
known mark at the time of registration).
Respondent registered the domain name
with the intention to sell, rent or transfer the domain name. Respondent registered the domain name and
immediately contracted with a third-party to rent the domain name for
$70,000. This type of behavior is
evidence of bad faith use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Dynojet Research, Inc. v. Norman, AF-0316 (eResolution Sept. 26,
2000) (finding that the Respondent demonstrated bad faith when he requested
monetary compensation
beyond out of pocket costs in exchange for the registered
domain name).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
has been satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements
required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief
shall be hereby
granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the
domain name <avianca.com> be transferred from Respondent to
Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Panelist
Dated: July 31, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1345.html