WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
ATA Airlines, Inc. v. Yong Li
Case No. D2003-0403
1. The Parties
The Complainant is ATA Airlines, Inc., of Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America, represented by Brian T. Hunt of United States of America.
The Respondent is Yong Li, of Beijing, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with iH Inc. d/b/a DotR.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 26, 2003. On May 26, 2003, the Center transmitted by email to iH Inc. d/b/a DotR a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On May 28, 2003, iH Inc. d/b/a DotR transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 11, 2003. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 1, 2003. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent�s default on July 2, 2003.
The Center appointed Michael J. Spence as the Sole Panelist in this matter on July 8, 2003. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant operates airlines services under the service mark ATA®. This mark has been used since as early as 1973. The Complainant owns multiple registrations associated with the mark, including United States Trademark registration No. 1498057 for the service mark ATA®. This registration issued on July 26, 1988, from an application filed on November 2, 1987, and indicates the year of first use as 1973. The Complainant is also the registered owner of the United States Trademark No. 2241527 for the mark HTTP://WWW.ATA.COM. This registration issued on April 27, 1999, from an application filed on September 27, 1997, and indicates the year of first use as 1996. The Complainant registered the domain name with Network Solutions, Inc. on December 13, 1996, and began using the mark in connection with travel, tour, charter and cargo services on approximately the same date. The Complainant�s site, "www.," attracts approximately one million views per month. Over 500,000 bookings have been made through "www.." Thus, the ATA mark is recognized as a source for Internet-based travel services.
5. Parties� Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its own trademarks and domain name, that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has acquired and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. It contends that the disputed name is not similar to any recognized word in English or Chinese, the language of the city in which the Respondent has its principal place of business. Rather, it is an attempt to capture business for a travel website and a gambling website that are not in any way associated with the Complainant. It contends that this is a case of what has come to be known as "typo-piracy," situations in which the tendency of users to mistype domain names is exploited to create commercial opportunities (see, for example, Geocities v. G, WIPO Case No. D2000-0326 (June 19, 2000)).
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant�s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants registered trademarks and domain name. In particular, the domain name is a foreseeable mistyping of the Complainant�s trademarks and domain name.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 20, 2003, by which time the Complainant had well established rights in its trademarks and domain name. The Respondent has not produced evidence of any legitimate interest in the use of a domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant�s trademarks and domain name. The Panel infers that the use of the disputed domain name is to divert traffic intended for the Complainant�s website to that of the travel service and gambling sites into which the name is resolved.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Because there is no conceivable legitimate interest of the Respondent in the use of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds bad faith on the basis of decisions such as General Electric Company v. Fisher Zvieli, a/k/a Zvieli Fisher, WIPO Case No. D2000-0377 (July 15, 2000). This is a clear case of "typo-piracy."
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, be transferred to the Complainant.
Michael J. Spence
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 11, 2003
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy