WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
AirTran Holdings Inc. v. Forsyte Corporation
Case No. D2008-1169
1. The Parties
Complainant is AirTran Holdings Inc., Orlando, Florida, United States of America, represented by Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, United States of America.
Respondent is Forsyte Corporation, Nassau, Bahamas.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain names and are registered with A, Inc.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 31, 2008. On August 1, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to A, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 7, 2008, A, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 15, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 4, 2008. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on September 5, 2008.
The Center appointed Susanna H.S. Leong as the sole panelist in this matter on September 24, 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
Complainant is AirTran Holdings, Inc., a corporation created under the laws of the State of Nevada with its principal place of business in Orlando, Florida, United States of America. Complainant, through its subsidiary AirTran Airways, Inc., provides air transportation services.
Complainant is the registered owner of the following AIRTRAN marks in the United States of America in respect of air transportation services:
AIRTRAN (U.S. Reg. No. 2,362,176; Registration date June 27, 2000)
AIRTRAN AIRWAYS (U.S. Reg. No. 2,364,510; Registration date July 4, 2000)
AIRTRAN.COM (U.S. Reg. No. 3,202,198; Registration date January 23, 2007)
Respondent registered the disputed domain names and on February 21, 2008 and October 4, 2007 respectively.
5. Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights on the following grounds:
1. Complainant has adduced evidence to prove that it is the registered owner of the AIRTRAN marks and has rights in respect of the marks.
2. The disputed domain names replicate Complainant's AIRTRAN marks in full, with the addition of the words “ticket” and “tickets” in each of them thereto.
3. It is well established that the simple addition of a word to a complainant's mark in a domain name may not suffice to preclude a finding of confusing similarity between the domain name and the complainant's mark.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names for the following reasons:
1. Complainant has maintained use of the AIRTRAN marks, including online use, and was granted trade mark registrations in respect of its AIRTRAN marks all prior to the registration of the disputed domain names and on February 21, 2008 and October 4, 2007 respectively.
2. Complainant has never provided authorization of any kind, including a license that would permit Respondent to use any of complainant's AIRTRAN marks.
3. Complainant has searched and has found no evidence that Respondent has used or made preparations to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names, or that Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
4. With respect to whether Respondent is “commonly known by” the disputed domain names, multiple panels have found that such a claim is inherently suspect where Respondent's name sounds nothing like the disputed domain names, as is the case presently; “Forsyte” and “” and “” are in no way synonymous or homonymic.
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are registered and are being used in bad faith on the following grounds:
1. Complainant contends that Respondent registered domain names that fully include a well-known mark, with no apparent good faith reason for doing so. Complainant therefore concludes that there is no possible explanation as to why Respondent would have selected such domain names that include Complainant's AIRTRAN marks, other than to trade on the goodwill of Complainant.
2. Complainant contends that Respondent cannot claim that he was unaware of Complainant's rights in the AIRTRAN marks as Complainant's federal registrations of the AIRTRAN marks provided constructive notice of the marks.
3. Respondent's bad faith can also be inferred from the fact that Respondent has offered to sell the disputed domain names to Complainant upon receipt of a cease-and-desist letter from Complainant. Prior UDRP Panels have ruled that bad faith can be inferred where a respondent responds to a cease-and-desist letter from a complainant by offering to sell the domain name at issue.
4. Respondent's bad faith can also be inferred from the fact that Respondent has displayed a pattern of bad faith registration of domain names. Respondent appears to have a practice of registering well-known domain names and has at least seven reported panel decisions ruling against him for bad faith registration and use.
5. Respondent's bad faith can also be inferred from the fact that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names for active websites and numerous prior UDRP panels have ruled that such conduct is evidence of bad faith registration and use.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this proceeding and obtain transfer of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must establish that each of the three following elements is satisfied:
1. The domain name 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.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy clearly states that the burden of proof lies with Complainant to establish that all these three elements are satisfied.
Furthermore, pursuant to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Moreover, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, these Rules or any request from the panel, the panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.
On the basis of the evidence introduced by Complainant and in particular with regard to the content of the relevant provisions of the Policy, (paragraphs 4(a), (b), (c)), the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has adduced evidence to demonstrate that it has registered trademark rights and continue to have such rights in the AIRTRAN marks in the United States of America in relation to air transportation services. The Panel finds that Complainant has rights and continues to have such rights in the relevant AIRTRAN marks.
The disputed domain names each consist of the words “airtrantickets” and “airtrantickets” and the suffix “.com”. In assessing the degree of similarity between Complainant's trademarks and the disputed domain names, the Panel shall have regard to the degree of visual, aural or conceptual similarity between them and where appropriate, evaluate the importance to be attached to these different elements. The issue of degree of similarity between Complainant's AIRTRAN marks and the disputed domain names is to be considered from the perspective of the average consumer of the goods or services concerned and in this case, the average Internet user.
The Panel finds that the term “airtran” in Complainant's AIRTRAN marks is the distinctive portion of Complainant's marks. The disputed domain names incorporate a term that is exactly the same as Complainants AIRTRAN marks except for an addition of the word “ticket” and “tickets” at the end of the disputed domain names respectively. The addition of a generic or descriptive word such as “ticket” or “tickets” as the case may be to the term “airtran” is not adequate to distinguish the final composite word from Complainant's AIRTRAN marks and does not alter the overall impression that Complainant's distinctive marks have been incorporated into the disputed domain names. This conclusion of the Panel is further buttressed by a lack of plausible explanation on the part of Respondent in his choice of the domain names. Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are phonetically identical and visually confusingly similar to Complainants' AIRTRAN marks. It is also an accepted principle that the addition of suffixes such as “.com” being the generic top-level domain is not a distinguishing factor. Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainants' trademarks in which Complainant has rights.
The Panel finds for Complainant on the first part of the test.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The burden of proof on this element lies with Complainant. However, it is well established by previous UDRP panel decisions that once a complainant establishes a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests to a disputed domain name, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to rebut the complainant's contentions.
According to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the domain names, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:
(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and notes that Respondent has not provided any evidence of the circumstances of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances giving rise to a right to or legitimate interest in the domain name.
Based on the following reasons the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names:
1. Respondent has not provided evidence of a legitimate use of the disputed domain names or reasons to justify the choice of “airtranticket” and “airtrantickets” in the disputed domain name;
2. There was no evidence to show that Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its trademarks or to apply for or use any domain names incorporating the trademarks;
3. There is no indication that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names and/or is using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;
4. Complainant and its AIRTRAN marks enjoy goodwill in the United States of America as a result of substantial use since 2000. Consequently, in the absence of contrary evidence and satisfactory explanations from Respondent, the AIRTRAN marks are not those that domain name holders could legitimately adopt without giving rise to the inference that Respondent is creating an impression of an association with Complainant and unfairly riding on Complainant's goodwill in the AIRTRAN marks.
The Panel finds for Complainant on the second part of the test.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith, namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on Respondent's website or location.
The above circumstances are indicative of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith but they are by no means exhaustive. Evidence of other circumstances can also constitute registration and use of the domain names in bad faith by a respondent in the appropriate cases.
One important consideration in the Panel's assessment of whether Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith is prior knowledge on the part of Respondent of Complainants' rights in the trademarks concerned. Complainant has argued that the federal registrations of its AIRTRAN marks in the United States of America provided constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the marks. More importantly, in this day and age of the Internet and advancement in information technology, the reputation of brands and trademarks transcends national borders. The Panel finds that it is highly unlikely that Respondent would not have had actual notice of Complainant's trademark rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain names. The Panel's conclusion that Respondent ought to have had knowledge of Complainants' AIRTRAN marks at the time of registration is further buttressed by the fact that in this day and age of the Internet and with businesses in general having an Internet presence, anyone who conducts a simple search exercise over the Internet may be able to ascertain whether “airtran” is a registered trademark and whether the choice of “airtranticket” and “airtrantickets” may give rise to an infringement of third parties' prior rights. Respondent should not adopt domain names which incorporate elements that are identical or confusingly similar to third parties' marks.
In this Panel's view, it is the duty of Respondent to undertake due diligence to ensure that the selection or choice of domain names does not infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties. Consequently, in the absence of contrary evidence and satisfactory explanations from Respondent, the Panel finds that the term “airtran” in Complainant's AIRTRAN marks, which enjoy goodwill in the United States of America, as a result of substantial use since 2000, is not one that domain name holders could legitimately adopt without giving rise to the inference that Respondent is creating an impression of an association with Complainants and is thus unfairly riding on the goodwill of Complainant. Thus, it would have been pertinent for Respondent to provide an explanation of its choice in the disputed domain names. However, Respondent has chosen not to respond to Complainant's allegations in the Complaint and this further supports the Panel's conclusion that the disputed domain names were registered by Respondent in bad faith with the intent to create an impression of an association with Complainant and its products and services, and profit therefrom.
Furthermore, Complainant has adduced evidence to show that Respondent attempted to offer to sell the disputed domain names to Complainant when he was contacted via a cease-and-desist letter from Complainant. In the absence of plausible explanation from Respondent, such conduct on his part raises the inference of bad faith and it is pertinent for Respondent to explain his conduct but Respondent has chosen not to respond. The Panel thus finds that such conduct on the part of Respondent is indicative of bad faith registration and use.
Finally, Respondent did not demonstrate that the disputed domain names have been used in connection with a bona fide offering of products and services in the Internet. On the contrary, Complainant has shown that Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in relation to an active website but has passively held the disputed domain names since registration. Such passive holding cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services on the part of Respondent.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary and rebuttal from Respondent, the choice of the disputed domain names and the use of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves conduct of Respondent as far as the website on to which the domain names resolve are indicative of registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith.
The Panel finds for Complainant on the third part of the test.
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 names and be transferred to Complainant.
Susanna H.S. Leong
Sole Panelist
Dated: October 8, 2008
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy