The Complainant is Alia - the Royal Jordanian Airlines, Plc. of Amman, Jordan, represented by Kurdi Law Offices, Jordan.
The Respondent is Bashir Bseirani of Herndon, Virginia, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 1, 2017. The Center transmitted its request for registrar verification to the Registrar the same day. The Registrar replied the same day, confirming that it has received a copy of the Complaint, that the Domain Name is registered with it, that the Respondent is the registrant, that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”) applies, that the language of the registration agreement is English, and that the Domain Name has been registered to the current registrant since at least January 8, 2017, expires on January 8, 2020, and will remain locked during this proceeding. The Registrar also provided the full contact details held on its WhoIs database in respect of the Domain Name.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the UDRP, 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 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 13, 2017. In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Rules, the due date for the Response was April 2, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 3, 2017.
The Center appointed Jonathan Turner as the sole panelist in this matter on April 12, 2017. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with paragraph 7 of the Rules. Having reviewed the file, the Panel is satisfied that the Complaint complied with applicable formal requirements, was duly notified to the Respondent and has been submitted to a properly constituted Panel in accordance with the UDRP, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant’s business was established in 1963 as the national airline of Jordan. The business was transferred to the Complainant in 2000 and privatized in 2001. It currently operates more than 30 aircraft flying to 60 destinations from its hub in Amman.
The name of the airline has throughout contained the words “Royal Jordanian”. The Complainant is the proprietor of various registered marks comprising the term “Royal Jordanian” or its equivalent in Arabic.
The Domain Name was registered on January 8, 2017 and resolves to a web page which displays photographs appearing to be of tourists in tourist destinations with the phrases “Fly ROYAL JORDANIAN” and “ROYAL DEALS TO ROYAL DESTINATIONS / COMING SOON” superimposed. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has rights in the mark ROYAL JORDANIAN and that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to this mark. The Complainant submits that the addition of the generic term “fly” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com” does not influence the overall impression, and that the Domain Name contains the essential distinctive component of its mark.
The Complainant further submits that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant points out that the Respondent is known by the name Bashir Bseirani and that the Complainant’s mark is abusively used on the Respondent’s web page. The Complainant states that it has never granted the Respondent any licence or authorization to use its mark and that the Respondent is not connected with it in any way. The Complainant adds that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, since the Respondent’s web page appears to threaten commercial use.
The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant states that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in 2017, decades after the Complainant was established and that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s rights. According to the Complainant the Respondent is intentionally using the Domain Name to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain by creating an impression that the Respondent is associated or affiliated with the Complainant.
The Complainant requests a decision that the Domain Name be transferred to it. B. Respondent
As stated above, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove: (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It is appropriate to consider each of these requirements in turn.
In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from the Respondent’s default in failing to file a response. This includes the acceptance of plausible evidence of the Complainant which has not been disputed. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered and unregistered rights in the mark ROYAL JORDANIAN.
The Panel further finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to this mark. The Domain Name differs from the mark only in the addition of the prefix “fly”, which is generic in relation to the services for which the mark is used, and the gTLD suffix “.com”. Many Internet users would understand the prefix “fly” as an exhortation to use the Complainant’s services, and would assume that the Domain Name locates a website of the Complainant providing information about and probably ticketing for the Complainant’s services.
The first requirement of the UDRP is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel considers that the Respondent’s web page is clearly intended to cause confusion with the Complainant and to lead Internet users to suppose that the business being promoted is part of the Complainant. Thus to the extent that the Respondent has prepared to use the Domain Name, this has been for a use in bad faith by exploiting confusion with the Complainant to market the Respondent’s business. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has not used or made preparations to use the Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services.
It is evident that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name or any corresponding name. It is also clear that the Respondent is not using the Domain Name for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use; the Respondent’s web page indicates an intention to exploit the Domain Name commercially.
On the evidence in the file, the Panel is satisfied that there is no basis on which the Respondent could claim to have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
The second requirement of the UDRP is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As stated above, the Panel considers that the Respondent’s web page is clearly intended to cause confusion with the Complainant and to lead Internet users to suppose that it is the website of a travel business operated or about to be operated by the Complainant.
The Panel accordingly finds that by using the Domain Name the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his web page for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ROYAL JORDANIAN mark as to the source of the web page and the services promoted on it. In accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP this constitutes evidence that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
There is no material on the file that displaces this presumption.
The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
All three requirements of the UDRP are satisfied and it is appropriate to direct that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. 7. Decision
For 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.
Jonathan Turner
Sole Panelist
Date: April 18, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy