WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Soci�t� Air France v. International Domain Registry
Case No. D2007-1763
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Soci�t� Air France, Paris, France, represented by Meyer & Partenaires, Strasbourg, France.
The Respondent is International Domain Registry, New South Wales, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, Inc.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 29, 2007. On November 29, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to GoD, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On December 3, 2007, GoD, Inc. 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 December 11, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 31, 2007. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 4, 2008.
The Center appointed Christopher J. Pibus as the sole panelist in this matter on January 17, 2008. 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 is a major airline company, providing air travel services worldwide. The Complainant has been operating under the trade name Soci�t� Air France since 1933.
The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the trademark AIR FRANCE, including: U.S. Trademark Registration No. 610,072 dated August 2, 1955 renewed on August 2, 1995; French Trademark Registration No. 1,703,113 dated October 31, 1991 for all classes of 1957 Nice Agreement, renewed on September 27, 2001; French Trademark Registration No. 99,811,269 dated September 6, 1999 in 32 classes of Nice Agreement and specially in international class 38 for internet services; and International Trademark registered in Australia (Registration No. 828334) dated October 20, 2003.
The Complainant also owns and operates a website at “”. Complainant also owns 8 other domain names, which include the words AIR FRANCE as a dominant element.
The Respondent registered the domain name on August 31, 2007. At the time of the Complaint the Respondent was operating a website in connection with the disputed domain name, which provided links to other websites.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark AIR FRANCE.
The Complainant submits that the domain name is confusingly similar because it incorporates as a dominant element the trademark AIR FRANCE in its entirety and only differs by the addition of the term “societe”. The term “societe” is a common French word for “company” in English. The Complainant submits that the addition of a descriptive term does not serve to distinguish the domain name from its trademark. In fact, the Complainant submits that the addition of the term “societe” actually increases the likelihood of confusion, because the Complainant’s trade name, which it has operated is business since 1933 is “Soci�t� Air France”.
(b) Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated or related to its trademark or business, and is not a licensee or otherwise authorized to use the AIR FRANCE trademark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not generally known by the subject domain name, and that the Respondent has not acquired any trademark rights or other service mark rights in the domain name. The Complainant’s rights in the AIR FRANCE trademark pre-date the registration of the domain name by the Respondent by more than 52 years. The Complainant also submits that the Respondent is not using the domain name in a manner which offers bona fide goods and/or services. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is operating a website that provides links to other websites for the purpose of monetary gain. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not established any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
(c) Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the domain names has been registered and is being used in bad faith based on the following factors: (i) Respondent’s knowledge of the well-known AIR FRANCE trademark at the time of registration of the dispute domain name; (ii) Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant’s use of “Soci�t� Air France” as a trade name; (iii) Respondent’s registration of a confusingly similar domain name; and (iv) Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a website that provide links to other websites for purposes of monetary gain.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the AIR FRANCE trademark, by virtue of U.S. Registration No. 610,072, which was attached to the Complaint.
The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered AIR FRANCE trademark.
The domain name is confusingly similar because the domain name contains as a dominant element the Complainant’s AIR FRANCE trademark in its entirety. The Panel accepts that the term “soci�t�” is the French equivalent for “company”, and accordingly, finds that the addition of the descriptive term “soci�t�” does not serve to distinguish the domain name from the trademark. In fact, the Panel finds that the addition of the term “societe” in the domain name increases the likelihood of confusion because the domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trade name “Soci�t� Air France”. See Soci�t� Air France v. Spiral Matrix, WIPO Case No. D2005-1337 and Soci�t� Air France v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd.WIPO Case No. D2004-0993.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds no evidence that the Respondent ever had any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in dispute. The Respondent registered the domain name 52 years after the Complainant had registered the AIR FRANCE trademark in the United States of America, and 70 years after the commencement of the Complainant’s business under the trade name Soci�t� Air France. The Panel finds no evidence that the Respondent was ever known by the disputed domain name. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s assertion that it never licensed or authorized the Respondent to use the AIR FRANCE trademark. The Panel further accepts that the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any manner.
The Panel finds that the Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. The Complainant has filed evidence in this proceeding showing that the Respondent is operating a website in connection with the disputed domain name which provides links to other websites for the purposes of monetary gain. The operation of a “click-through” site is not evidence of a bona fide offering of goods and services.
The Panel is therefore satisfied that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once a complainant has made this prima facie showing, the Respondent must come forward with evidence that rebuts this presumption (Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0270).
As the Respondent has not filed any evidence in response, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The uncontested evidence shows that the Complainant’s trademark AIR FRANCE is distinctive and well-known in the U.S. and internationally, including Australia, the country where the Respondent resides. The Panel is therefore prepared to infer that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark rights when it registered the domain name .
The Panel is also prepared to find that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name and is using the domain name for the operation of click-through website which provide links to other websites for the purposes of monetary gain. The evidence shows that the Respondent was not authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s trademark and the Respondent did not file any response contesting this claim. The Respondent appears to have deliberately traded on the goodwill of the Complainant, by replicating the Complainant’s trade name in its entirety, thereby attracting internet users and diverting internet traffic intended for the Complainant’s website to the Respondent’s website for the purpose of monetary gain. Prior Panels have recognized this type of conduct as evidence of bad faith (see MasterCard International Incorporated v. ZJ,WIPO Case No. D2007-0687 and MasterCard International Incorporated v. Eric Hochberger, WIPO Case No. D2006-1050).
For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the third requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
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.
Christopher J. Pibus
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 21, 2008
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy