The Complainant is American Airlines, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, United States.
The Respondents are Ramadhir Singh, India, WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc, Panama. / Reema Gupta and Ballu Balwant, India, Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org), United States / Lucy Lionel, Lucy99, and Red Keep, India. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names The disputed domain names The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 31, 2021. On February 1, 2021, the Center transmitted by emails to the Registrars requests for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 1 and 2, 2021, the Registrars transmitted by emails to the Center their verification responses disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 2, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 4, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amended Complaint, satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “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 the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 4, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 24, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 25, 2021. The Center appointed Reyes Campello Estebaranz as the sole panelist in this matter on March 3, 2021. 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 one of the largest airlines in the world, well known around the globe during its more than 90-year history. Since 1934, the Complainant operates under the trademark AMERICAN AIRLINES, as well other trademarks such as AA or AMERICAN, alone or in connection with other words and designs (collectively the “AMERICAN mark”). Prior decisions under the Policy have recognized the well-known character of the AMERICAN mark1. The Complainant holds registered trademark rights in the AMERICAN mark in many jurisdictions, being the owner of a substantial trademark portfolio, including United States Trademark No. 0514294 AMERICAN AIRLINES, registered on August 23, 1949, in class 39; and United States Trademark No. 5288639 AMERICAN, registered on September 19, 2017, in classes 35 and 39. The Complainant further owns various domain names comprising its AMERICAN mark, including The disputed domain name The disputed domain names are currently inactive. According to the evidence provided by the Complainant the disputed domain names numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were linked to similar websites displaying the AMERICAN mark, as well as various images of the Complainant’s airplanes and personnel, allegedly providing travel booking services and customer services related to the Complainant’s airlines. These websites included telephone numbers indicated as “toll free numbers”, as well as email addresses and other contact details. The disputed domain names numbers 6 and 7 do not resolve to active webpages, but will be discussed in more detail below. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Key contentions of the Complaint may be summarized as follows: The circumstances of the case indicate that the disputed domain names are likely to be subject to common control, particularly the similarity of the disputed domain names, the common location of the registrants, and the fact that all the disputed domain names are being used for the same purpose. The Complainant’s trademark is well known globally and is registered in 75 jurisdictions; including Panama and India were the registrants are purportedly located. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the AMERICAN mark. The disputed domain names incorporate the AMERICAN mark adding (with or without a hyphen) terms (“flights”, “phone number”, “numbers”, “reservation”, and “service”) that are directly connected to the Complainant’s airline business, which increases the likelihood of confusion. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, has not used or prepared to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, is not associated with the Complainant, and has not been authorized to use the AMERICAN mark. The Respondent has used the disputed domain names to divert Internet traffic to websites prominently displaying the famous AMERICAN mark, as well as the Complainant’s copyrighted photographs of airplanes, impersonating the Complainant to defraud consumers by adding unauthorized charges to their credit cards, obtaining sensible personal and financial information, and/or offering competing travel booking services. The Respondent has promoted its websites on social media including links to these websites. The Respondent’s websites include various email addresses incorporating the AMERICAN mark and various telephone numbers, and the persons answering phone calls to these numbers falsely indicates that it is the Complainant’s reservation desk. The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Due to the well-known character of the AMERICAN mark, it is clear that the Respondent targeted this trademark when it registered the disputed domain names with opportunistic bad faith. The disputed domain names are so obviously connected with the Complainant and its services that any use by someone with no connection to the Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith. As the AMERICAN mark is registered in the countries where the Respondent is purported located, the Respondent had constructive knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain names are used in bad faith to impersonate the Complainant in a fraudulent scam. The use of a privacy or proxy registration service to register the disputed domain names corroborates the Respondent’s bad faith. The Complainant has cited previous decisions under the Policy that it considers supportive of its position, and requests the transfer of the disputed domain names. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Complainant has made the relevant assertions as required by the Policy and the dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy. The Panel has authority to decide the dispute examining the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, taking into consideration all of the relevant evidence, annexed material and allegations, and performing some limited independent research under the general powers of the Panel articulated, inter alia, in paragraph 10 of the Rules. A. Complaint consolidated against multiple respondents The Panel considers that the circumstances of this case substantiate the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple Respondents (registrants of the disputed domain names), indicating in a balance of probabilities that the disputed domain names are subject to common control. Particularly, the similar content and layout of the websites that were linked to the disputed domain names; the fact that all the disputed domain names target a specific sector and the same trademark within this sector; the similar patterns in the disputed domain names; and the identical reaction of the Respondents to the Complaint, not replying to the Complainant’s contentions. The Panel has corroborated through the Internet archive WayBackMachine that the disputed domain names number 6 and 7 were linked to similar websites as the ones linked to the disputed domain names numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 according to the evidence provided by the Complainant. The Panel considers that this consolidation is fair and equitable to all the parties and benefits the procedural efficiency, accepting, in accordance with paragraph 10 (e) of the Rules, the Complainant’s request for consolidation. Accordingly, the Panel will refer to the Respondents of the disputed domain names collectively as “the Respondent”. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant indisputably has rights in the registered trademark AMERICAN, both by virtue of its numerous trademark registrations and as a result of its global goodwill and reputation. The disputed domain names incorporate the AMERICAN mark in its entirety adding various terms (“the”, “flights”, “phone number”, “service”, “numbers”, “reservation”) with or without a hyphen, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant’s trademark is recognizable in the disputed domain names and the generic Top-Level Domains “.com” or “.org” are technical requirements, generally disregarded for the purpose of the analysis of the confusing similarity. See sections 1.7, 1.8, and 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Although the Complainant bears the ultimate burden of establishing all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is primarily if not exclusively within the respondent’s knowledge. Thus, the consensus view is that paragraph 4(c) of the Policy shifts to the respondent the burden of production to come forward with relevant evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant’s above-noted assertions and evidence in this case effectively shift the burden to the Respondent of producing evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, providing the circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, without limitation, that may establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names in order to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions, not providing any explanation or evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. A core factor in assessing fair use of the disputed domain names is that they do not falsely suggest affiliation with the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain names incorporate the AMERICAN mark adding terms (“flights”, “phone number”, “service”, “numbers”, “reservation”) that may refer to the Complainant’s business and its booking services. Therefore, the Panel considers that there is a risk of implied affiliation due to the reproduction of the Complainant’s trademark with the mentioned additional terms. See section 2.5.1, WIPO Overview 3.0. The Panel has further corroborated that the disputed domain names were linked to similar websites displaying the AMERICAN mark, photographs of the Complainant’s airplanes and personnel (wearing uniform), telephone numbers indicated as “toll free numbers”, and email addresses including the AMERICAN mark, allegedly providing travel booking services and customer services related to the Complainant’s airlines. These circumstances indicate a clear intention to impersonate the Complainant creating the impression that these websites belong to or are related to the Complainant and its airlines, which does not constitute a bona fide offering of services. The Panel further considers remarkable the Respondent’s attitude of deliberately choosing not to reply to the Complaint. All these circumstances lead the Panel to conclude that the Complainant has established a strong prima facie case, not rebutted by the Respondent, and all cumulative facts and circumstances of this case point to consider that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Therefore, the second element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(ii) has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii), requires that the Complainant establishes that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. The applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases is the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence”, being the Panel prepared to draw certain inferences in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the case. See section 4.2, WIPO Overview 3.0. The Panel notes that the AMERICAN mark has extensive presence over the Internet and is well known worldwide, thus it is inconceivable that the Respondent did not have knowledge of this trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain names. Furthermore, all cumulative circumstances of this case point to bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names: (i) the disputed domain names incorporate the AMERICAN mark in its entirety, adding terms that refer to the Complainant’s business and its booking services, which enhances the intrinsic likelihood of confusion and affiliation; (ii) the Complainant’s trademark is well known worldwide; (iii) the Complainant operates globally including the countries (Panama and India) where the Respondent is located according to the WhoIs record of the disputed domain names; (iv) the Respondent used privacy registration services; (v) the websites that were linked to the disputed domain names targeted the Complainant and its business, including content related to the Complainant’s services, the AMERICAM mark and copyrighted photographs of the Complainant’s planes and personnel, as well as email addresses including the AMERICAN mark; and (vi) the Respondent has not offered any explanation of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and has not come forward to deny the Complainant’s assertions of bad faith, choosing not to reply to the Complaint. It is further to be noted that the current non-use of the disputed domain names do not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. See section 3.3, WIPO Overview 3.0. In light of the above, taking into consideration all cumulative facts and circumstances of this case, on the balance of probabilities, the Panel considers that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith, with the intention of obtaining a free ride on the established reputation of the Complainant. The disputed domain names were registered and used targeting the Complainant and its reputed trademark, intentionally impersonating the Complainant and/or creating a likelihood of confusion as to the affiliation or association with the Complainant and its reputed trademark to misleadingly attract Internet users to the Respondent’s websites. It is further probable that the Respondent acted in bad faith with the intention to obtain sensible private information from its websites’ visitors or through emails connected to the disputed domain names, in a phishing scam or other fraudulent activity, presumably acting as the Complainant’s reservation desk. The Panel further considers that the number of the disputed domain names indicates that the Respondent is engaged in a bad faith pattern of abusive domain name registration. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has met its burden of establishing that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. 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 disputed domain names Reyes Campello Estebaranz 1 See American Airlines, Inc. v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Hall Fame,WIPO Case No. D2020-1686; and, American Airlines, Inc. v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Brunes Jeans,WIPO Case No. D2020-2288.
Sole Panelist
Date: March 11, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy