The Complainant is Compagnie Daher, France, represented by INSCRIPTA, France.
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland/ King Cobra, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 4, 2021. On June 7, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 7, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 8, 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 amendment to the Complaint on June 8, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with 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 June 17, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 7, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 12, 2021. The Center appointed Daniel Peña as the sole panelist in this matter on July 20, 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 supplier to high-technology industries, specialised in three sectors: Aerospace & Defence, Nuclear & Energy and Capital Goods. The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for DAHER. These DAHER trademarks are registered in connection with goods and services related to airplanes and aircraft industries, such as airplane engines or parts and elements for aircraft engines in International class 06; installations for distribution of fluids of all types to aircraft in International class 11; air vehicles and aircraft in International. class 12; commercial mediation and consultancy in connection with civil aviation, aircraft and their parts in International class 35; assembly services of aircraft and aircraft elements and servicing, technical monitoring, maintenance, renovation and repair of airplanes in International class 37, air and aerospace engineering in International class 42. The Complainant is owner of International trademark registration No. 909236, registered in 2006 inter alia in the European Union, in the United States of America, in China, in the Russian Federation, in Australia or in Switzerland. European Union trademark registrations No. 014304042 and No. 014348262; International trademark registration No. 1280406, registered inter alia in the United States of America or the Russian Federation. The Complainant owns more than 120 domain names including the DAHER trademark alone or combined with descriptive terms or with names of the companies pertaining to the Daher group including The disputed domain name was registered on April 5, 2021, and the website to which the disputed domain name resolves to a “domain name parking” or “pay-per-click” service promoting commercial hyperlinks competing with the Complainant’s goods and services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to DAHER trademarks. The disputed domain name points to a website hosting commercial hyperlinks promoting various goods or services in connection with the aerospace industry, i.e., goods and services identical and similar to those covered by the Complainant’s trademarks. The disputed domain name was registered after the Complainant’s trademarks DAHER were registered. Thus, the Respondent “knew or should have known” of the registration and/or use of the trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name associates the trademark DAHER with the abbreviation “aero”, which is commonly used in the aircraft and aerospace industry. The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant’s business. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel holds that the disputed domain name The disputed domain name incorporates the trademark DAHER in its entirety to which is added the suffix “aero”, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” and a hyphen. The Panel considers that the addition of the suffix “aero” and a hyphen does not diminish in any way the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s DAHER trademarks and the disputed domain name. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Furthermore, the gTLD, in this case “.com”, may be ignored when assessing the confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name since it is a technical registration requirement (see, e.g., VAT Holding AG v. Vat.com,WIPO Case No. D2000-0607 and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11). Therefore, the Panel considers that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name as the disputed domain name is being used in connection with a “domain name parking” or “pay-per-click” service promoting commercial hyperlinks directly competing with the Complainant’s goods and services in the fields of aerospace, aircraft and aeronautics. The Complainant bears the burden of proof in establishing this requirement. In view of the difficulties inherent in proving a negative and because the relevant information is mainly in the possession of the Respondent, it is enough for the Complainant to establish a prima facie case which, if not rebutted by sufficient evidence from the Respondent will lead to this ground being set forth. Refraining from submitting a formal Response, the Respondent has brought to the Panel’s attention no circumstances from which the Panel could infer that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel will now examine the Complainant’s arguments regarding the absence of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in connection with the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the Complainant’s trademarks in a domain name or in any other manner. The Respondent did not submit a Response or attempt to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Panel draws adverse inferences from this failure, where appropriate, in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 14(b). Furthermore, the unrebutted claim of the Complainant that the disputed domain name is being used to resolve to a webpage with PPC links supports a finding that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (see section 2.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered evidence of the registration or use of a disputed domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the owner of the trademark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; The Complainant has demonstrated that its trademarks are well-known and that the disputed domain name incorporates in full its trademarks and that the Respondent has no relationship with the DAHER trademarks. In the Panel’s view, a finding of bad faith may be made where the Respondent “knew or should have known” of the registration and/or use of the trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name. In this case, the widespread commercial recognition of the trademark DAHER is such that the Respondent must have had knowledge of the trademark before registering the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the use of the descriptive term “aero” in the disputed domain name, which refers to one of the Complainant’s activities, indicates that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant at the time it registered the disputed domain name. The Panel is satisfied that by using the disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage with PPC links, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of the products on its website (see section 3.1.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, this circumstance shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of showing bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under paragraphs 4(a)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. 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 name Daniel Peña
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
(ii) the 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 the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct;
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
Sole Panelist
Date: August 3, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy