Complainant is American Airlines, Inc., United States of America, represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, United States of America.
Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States of America / Mailoy, Admin Mailoy, United States of America (“United States”). 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 30, 2021. On June 30, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 30, 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 Complainant on July 1, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 2, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 7, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 27, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 29, 2021. The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on August 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 Complainant is a multinational airline carrier, based in the United States. Since at least 1948, Complainant has offered travel, transportation, and related services under its mark AMERICAN AIRLINES. Complainant has several registered trademarks for its AMERICAN AIRLINES mark, including in the United States, where Respondent lists an address of record. These include, among others, United States Registration Nos. 514,294 (registered August 23, 1949); 4,939,082 (registered April 19, 2016); and 5,279,167 (registered September 5, 2017). Complainant has also offered services to consumers via its website, located at the URLs associated with The disputed domain name Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name In particular, Complainant contends that it has established rights in its AMERICAN AIRLINES mark, in the field of travel, transportation, and related services. Complainant contends that Respondent has merely added the dictionary terms “reservations” and “flights”, which Complainant contends is intended to confuse consumers into believing that Respondent’s website is officially endorsed by Complainant. In particular, Complainant contends that the wording of the disputed domain name “directly describes Complainant’s airline flight reservation services”. Complainant further contends that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to set up a website meant to lure in customers looking for Complainant and its various travel services, likely in a phishing scheme. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name registration or use of the disputed domain name. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in setting up a website, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s rights. B. Respondent Respondent did not file a reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain name Numerous UDRP panels have agreed that supplementing or modifying a trademark with generic or descriptive words does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity for purposes of satisfying this first prong of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, for example, Inter Ikea Systems B.V. v. Polanski,WIPO Case No. D2000-1614 (transferring The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Policy provides some guidance to respondents on how to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue in a UDRP dispute. For example, paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples that might show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. These examples include: (i) use of the domain name “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services”; (ii) demonstration that Respondent has been “commonly known by the domain name”; or (iii) “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”. Respondent did not submit a reply to Complainant’s contentions. Although the Panel is aware that the components of Complainant’s asserted mark AMERICAN AIRLINES are dictionary terms, Complainant has demonstrated a high level of recognition of its mark, particularly in the United States, where Respondent lists an address of record. Furthermore, Respondent did not allege or otherwise provide any information that would support a finding that Respondent has rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, which Respondent has not rebutted. The Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith. For example, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy states that bad faith can be shown where “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 the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the] website or location”. As noted in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, Respondent has set up a URL associated with the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that appears to mimic an official website of Complainant, and which attempts to confuse consumers by referring to “American Airlines” and “American Airlines Reservations Help Desk”. Likely under the guise of attracting consumers seeking services from Complainant, the website associated with the disputed domain name further invites prospective consumers to contact Respondent to further discuss reservations and other services. Respondent is thus trading on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademarks to attract Internet users, presumably for Respondent’s own commercial gain. The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 disputed domain name Lorelei Ritchie
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 16, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy