WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
The Boeing Company v. Nicola Bressi
Case No. D2000-1164
1. Introduction
This is a mandatory administrative proceeding submitted for decision in accordance with the Uniform Policy for Domain Name Dispute Resolution, adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on August 26, 1999 (the "Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999 (the "Rules") and the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").
The Administrative Panel consisting of a single member was appointed on October 11, 2000 by WIPO.
2. The Parties
The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is The Boeing Company (Boeing), a Delaware corporation having a place of business at 7755 East Marginal Way South, Seattle, Washington, 98124, United States of America.
The Respondent in this Administrative Proceeding is Mr. Nicola Bressi, whose address is listed as Via P. Kolbe 2, Desio, 20033, Italy.
3. The Domain Names and Registrar
"" and ""
Network Solutions, Inc, 505 Huntmar Park Drive, Herndon, VA., 20170, United States of America.
4. Jurisdiction and Related Matters
By registering the subject domain names with the Registrar, the Respondent agreed to the resolution of disputes pursuant to the Policy and Rules.
5. Procedural History
The Complaint filed by the Complainant with the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") was received by the Center on September 1, 2000, by email and on September 4, 2000 in hard copy. An Acknowledgement of Receipt dated September 5, 2000, was sent by e-mail by the WIPO Center to the Complainant. The WIPO Center dispatched to the Registrar a Request for a Registrar Verification by email on September 6, 2000. The Registrar responded by e-mail to the WIPO Center on September 10, 2000. On September 11, 2000, having verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Policy and the Uniform Rules, the Center formally commenced this proceeding and notified the Respondent that its Response would be due by September 30, 2000. The Respondent did not file a response by the due date.
An examination of this material confirms that all technical requirements for the prosecution of this proceeding were met.
Neither party requested an opportunity to make further submissions and the Administrative Panel is content to proceed on the basis of the existing record.
6. Factual Background
As measured by total revenues, the Complainant is the global leader in aerospace companies. A publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol BA, the Complainant earned U.S. $58 billion in revenues in 1999.
The Complainant has offices and facilities in more than 60 countries throughout the world, and employs approximately 197,000 employees.
The Complainant is the largest exporter in the United States, as measured by total sales. The vast array of the Complainant�s products and services are provided to its customers through 28,800 suppliers in 145 countries.
As the largest manufacturer of commercial jetliners in the world. The Complainant�s main commercial products are the 717, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 families of jetliners, and the Boeing Business Jet. For its 11,000 commercial jetliners in service worldwide, the Complainant provides numerous services, including but not limited to: technical support services; engineering, modification, and logistics services; maintenance, repair, and overhaul facilities; and training services.
The Complainant has become one of the largest manufacturers of military aircrafts in the world. It manufactures military airplanes (e.g., the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, F/A-18 Hornet, F-15 Eagle, F-22 Raptor, AV-8B Harrier, and the Joint Strike Fighter) and helicopters (RAH-Comanche, CH-47 Chinook, AH-64D Apache Longbow, and the V-22 Osprey). The Complainant�s products and related services also include electronic and defence systems, advanced information and communication systems, rocket engines, launch systems, and missiles.
The Complainant first began using "BOEING" as its trade name in 1917 and as a mark to identify its goods and services in 1923. The Complainant filed its first United States trademark application for the BOEING mark in 1942, and has since obtained over 60 registrations for its BOEING mark on the Principal Register. The Complainant also has registered its BOEING mark in countries throughout the world.
The Complainant operates a website at "", where it provides information about its goods and services and investor information about the company.
On April 27, 2000, the Complainant announced its "CONNEXION BY BOEING" service through a press release and a roll out in the cities of New York, London, and Tokyo. The CONNEXION BY BOEING service is a global communications network that provides air travellers with high-speed data communications services. For commercial airline passengers, the CONNEXION BY BOEING service will offer real-time transmission and receipt of data, from Internet access, including e-mail and corporate intranet access to live television and entertainment; to shopping, travel, and destination information. For flight crews, the CONNEXION BY BOEING system will offer real-time access to off-board resources.
Since April 27, 2000 press release, the Complainant �s CONNEXION BY BOEING service has been the subject of extensive international and local media coverage by newswires, such as The Associated Press. Numerous articles appeared in widely circulated print and online publications, such as The New York Times, The Guardian, The Seattle Times, PR Newswire, the Financial Post, "I", Yahoo!, "TheS", Time of India, ABC News, CBS News, Airwise News, ZDNet, and Wired News. In Italy, the news of the Complainant�s CONNEXION BY BOEING service was covered by many publications, including Corriere della Sera, La Repubblica, and Computerworld Italia.
The Complainant�s CONNEXION BY BOEING service has been a feature presentation at numerous commercial trade shows in a number of countries over several months beginning in April 2000.
The Complainant�s CONNEXION BY BOEING service is profiled on its website located at ""; the specific URL internal to that site is "".
The Complainant�s CONNEXION BY BOEING service is currently available to the private business jet market and will be available for installation on-board commercial airlines beginning in 2001.
For its CONNEXION BY BOEING service, the Complainant has signed strategic agreements with numerous companies, including but not limited to: CNN Inflight; Mitsubishi Electric Corp.; Loral Skynet, Matsushita Avionics Systems, Corp.; CNBC; Alenia Aerospace, which is located in Italy, where the Respondent is domiciled.
After the Complainant�s announcement, the Respondent registered the domain names "" and "".
The Respondent is not and has never been a licensee of the Complainant and is not and has never been authorized by the Complainant to use the BOEING mark or the CONNEXION BY BOEING mark.
The Complainant is the owner of the following United States trademark registrations:
a) Registration No. 0423674 for the mark BOEING and Design, first used in 1930, filed February 10, 1942 and issued September 10, 1946, covering goods and services in International Class 14 (jewellery, precious metals).
b) Registration No. 0882041 for the mark BOEING, first used September 1923, filed April 29, 1968 and issued December 9, 1969, covering goods and services in International Class 12 (vehicles).
The Complainant is the owner of the over 60 additional United States trademark registrations for the mark BOEING, including the following representative registrations:
a) Registration No. 1283493, for the mark BOEING, first used March 31, 1959, filed June 29, 1983 and issued June 26, 1984, covering goods and services in International Class 28 (toys and sporting goods).
b) Registration No. 1352503 for the mark BOEING, first used July 1, 1982, filed on November 30, 1983 and issued on August 6, 1985, covering goods and services in International Class 9 (electrical and scientific apparatus).
c) Registration No. 1402994 for the mark BOEING, first used November 15, 1971, filed January 7, 1986 and issued July 29, 1986, covering goods and services in International Class 9 (electrical and scientific apparatus).
d) Registration No. 1403997 for the mark BOEING, first used November 15, 1971, filed January 7, 1986 and issued August 5, 1986, covering goods and services in International Class 16 (paper goods and printed matter).
e) Registration No. 2237713 for the mark BOEING, first used April 1, 1998, filed August 6, 1997 and issued April 6, 1999, covering goods and services in International Class 11 (environmental control apparatus).
f) Registration No. 2250384 for the mark BOEING, first used September 1, 1997, filed August 6, 1997 and issued June 1, 1999, covering goods and services in International Class 9 (electrical and scientific apparatus).
g) Registration No. 2256000 for the mark BOEING, first used September 1, 1997, filed August 6, 1997 and issued June 22, 1999, covering goods and services in International Class 14 (jewellery, precious metals).
h) Registration No. 2314887 for the mark BOEING and Design, first used January 1, 1998, filed August 1, 1997 and issued February 1, 2000, covering goods and services in International Class 42 (miscellaneous services).
i) Registration No. 2314892 for the mark BOEING and Design, first used January 1, 1998, filed August 6, 1997 and issued February 1, 2000, covering goods and services in International Class 42 (miscellaneous services).
j) Registration No. 2314892 for the mark BOEING and Design, first used September 1, 1997, filed August 6, 1997 and issued February 1, 2000, covering goods and services in International Class 42 (miscellaneous services).
k) Registration No. 2314892 for the mark BOEING and Design, first used September 1, 1997, filed August 6, 1997 and issued February 1, 2000, covering goods and services in International Class 42 (miscellaneous services).
l) Registration No. 2314891 for the mark BOEING and Design, first used September 1, 1997, filed August 6, 1997 and issued February 1, 2000, covering goods and services in International Class 28 (toys and sporting goods).
The Complainant owns the following Italian trademark registrations:
a) Registration Number 432978 for the mark BOEING, issued on October 28, 1983, covering goods and services in International Classes 9 (electrical and scientific apparatus); 12 (vehicles); 28 (toys and sporting goods); and 37 (building construction and repair).
b) Registration Number 474727 for the mark BOEING, issued on April 27, 1986, covering goods and services in International Classes 12 (vehicles) and 21 (housewares and glass).
The Complainant is also the owner of United States Application No. 76-039442 for the mark CONNEXION BY BOEING, filed on May 2, 2000, covering communications services, namely, transmission of data via wired and/or wireless means including via a satellite communications network, in International Class 38.
The Complainant owns the domain name "BOEING.COM", which was registered with Network Solutions, Inc. on September 2, 1986 and has been used to identify the Complainant�s website since on or about that date.
On May 11, 2000, the Respondent registered the domain names "" and "".
7. Parties� Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant points to its use and registration of its trademarks and trade names over many years.
The Complainant asserts that the domain name "" fully incorporates its trademark and trade name CONNEXION BY BOEING and is identical to and confusingly similar to that mark and name.
The domain name "" fully incorporates complainant�s valuable and famous trademark and trade name boeing and is confusingly similar to that mark and name.
Similarly, the Complainant says that the domain name "" fully incorporates its Complainant�s valuable trademark and trade name CONNEXION BY BOEING and is identical to and confusingly similar to that mark and name and is confusingly similar to the Complainant�s mark BOEING.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the domain names and that it registered them in bad faith. Reliance is placed on the timing of the Respondent�s registration of the names and the apparent absence of any legitimate commercial activity associated with them.
B. Respondent
The Respondent has not participated in this proceeding and no material authored by it has been made available to the Administrative Panel.
8. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that:
a) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a service mark to which the Complainant has rights;
b) the Respondent has no legitimate interest in respect of the domain name;
c) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusing
It is clear on the evidence that the Complainant has rights in the names CONNEXION BY BOEING and BOEING and that it acquired these rights before the Respondent registered the subject domain names, "" and "". Those names essentially are identical to the Complainant�s mark, CONNEXION BY BOEING and are confusingly similar to the Complainant�s mark BOEING.
The Administrative Panel finds that the Complainant has a right which is violated by the Respondent in contravention of the Policy.
B. Respondent�s Legitimate Interest
The Respondent has advanced no basis on which the Administrative Panel could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names. In addition, the Complainant has registered its marks in the Respondent�s jurisdiction, Italy. The evidence is that no commercial use is being made of the names.
The Administrative Panel concludes that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the subject domain names.
C. Bad Faith
The timing of the Respondent�s registration - shortly after the Complainant�s public announcement of its campaign using CONNEXION BY BOEING without explanation by the Respondent leads to the proper inference of bad faith. The absence of any commercial use of the names supports this.
The Administrative Panel finds that the subject domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
9. Decision
Based on the evidence and the findings stated herein, the Administrative Panel decides that the Complaint has established its claim.
The Complainant asks that the domain names "" and "" be transferred to it.
The Administrative Panel so orders.
Edward C. Chiasson, Q.C.
Panelist
Dated: October 23, 2000
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy