![]() |
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Northwest
Airlines, Inc. v. Andrey Michailov
Claim
Number: FA0403000247976
Complainant is Northwest Airlines, Inc. (“Complainant”),
represented by Travis L. Bachman, of Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498. Respondent is Andrey Michailov (“Respondent”), Lesnaya 14-11, Moscow 210141,
Russia.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <nwair.com>, registered with Enom, Inc.
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.
Hon.
Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on March 18, 2004; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on March 19, 2004.
On
March 19, 2004, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <nwair.com> is registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent
is the current registrant of the name. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent
is bound by the Enom, 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
March 22, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
April 12, 2004 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@nwair.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
April 20-, 2001, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon.
Ralph Yachnin 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.
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <nwair.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NWA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <nwair.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <nwair.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant has
a live service mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) for NWA (Reg. No. 76,210,945) registered
March 12, 2002.
Complainant’s NWA mark is listed on the Principal Register of the USPTO and the
date of first use is listed as June
13, 1943. Complainant also operates a
website at the <nwa.com> domain name.
Respondent
registered the <nwair.com> domain name on November 1, 2000. The disputed domain name redirects internet
traffic to <vipfares.com>, which markets airline reservations and booking
airline
transportation. In addition,
the “affiliates” page formerly available at <vipfares.com> states that it
buys domain names and web traffic.
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 Response, the Panel shall decide this
administrative proceeding on the basis of 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 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.
Complainant has
rights in the NWA mark through registration with the USPTO and continuous use
in commerce. See Men’s Wearhouse,
Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S.
trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently
distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher,
D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that
registration of a mark is prima facie evidence
of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently
distinctive. Respondent has the burden
of refuting this assumption).
The Panel finds
that the <nwair.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s NWA mark, the only difference in the concatenation of the word
“air” to the mark,
which does not significantly distinguish the domain name
from the mark. See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing
similarity where Respondent’s domain name combines Complainant’s mark with
a
generic term that has an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business); see
also L.L. Bean, Inc. v.
ShopStarNetwork, FA 95404 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000) (finding that
combining the generic word “shop” with Complainant’s registered mark “llbean”
does not circumvent Complainant’s rights in the mark nor avoid the confusing
similarity aspect of the ICANN Policy).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent
has failed to produce a Response in this proceeding. Therefore, it is presumed
that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the <nwair.com>
domain name. See Pavillion Agency,
Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding
that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they
have no
legitimate interest in the domain names). Furthermore, because
Respondent failed to submit a Response, the Panel is permitted to
make all
inferences in favor of Complainant. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In
the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations
of the Complaint”).
Respondent is
appropriating Complainant’s mark in its domain name to sell travel-related
services in competition with Complainant.
This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of
the domain name,
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ticketmaster Corp. v. DiscoverNet, Inc.,
D2001-0252 (WIPO Apr. 9, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where
Respondent generated commercial gain by intentionally
and misleadingly
diverting users away from Complainant's site to a competing website); see
also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu,
FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s
appropriation of Complainant’s mark to market products that
compete with
Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and
services)
The Panel finds
nothing in the record, including Respondent’s WHOIS registration information,
which indicates that Respondent is commonly
known by the disputed domain
name. Complainant asserts that there is
no relationship between it and Respondent.
See Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003)
(stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is
‘commonly
known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also 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).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is
using the <nwair.com> domain name to sell travel services. Respondent is using a domain name that is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to create a likelihood of confusion,
as to the
source of the domain name, for commercial gain; this is sufficient to
demonstrate bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Carroll, FA 97035 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14,
2001) (finding bad faith where Respondent used the domain name, for commercial
gain, to intentionally
attract users to a direct competitor of Complainant); see
also AltaVista v. Krotov,
D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)
where Respondent linked the domain name to a website
that offers a number of
web services similar to those offered by Complainant.)
Respondent is
attempting to attract Internet surfers who are seeking to locate NWA in
cyberspace. Because Respondent is a
competitor of Complainant, the Panel infers that it is appropriating the
confusingly similar domain name to
disrupt Complainant’s business, pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See General Media Communications, Inc. v. Vine
Ent., FA 96554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 26, 2001) (finding bad faith where a
competitor of Complainant registered and used a domain name
confusingly similar
to Complainant’s PENTHOUSE mark to host a pornographic web site); see also
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. v. Beaty Enters., FA 135008 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Jan. 2, 2003) (finding evidence
of bad faith use and registration where Respondent and Complainant both
operated in the highly regulated field of
radio broadcasting and Respondent
registered a domain name incorporating Complainant’s call letters).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <nwair.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: May 3, 2004
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/656.html