SOCIÉTÉ AIR FRANCE v. Rachit Madan
Claim Number: FA1809001804543
Complainant is SOCIÉTÉ AIR FRANCE (“Complainant”), represented by Anne KUNTZ of MEYER & Partenaires, France. Respondent is Rachit Madan (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <airfrance-booking.us>, <airfrance-fly.us>, <airfrance-fr.us>, <airfrance-get.us>, <airfrance-pass.us>, <airfrance-claim.us>, <airfrance-redeem.us>, and <airfrance-ticket.us>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.; and <airfrance-book.us>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 4, 2018; the Forum received payment on September 4, 2018.
On September 5, 2018, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <airfrance-booking.us>, <airfrance-fly.us>, <airfrance-fr.us>, <airfrance-get.us>, <airfrance-pass.us>, <airfrance-claim.us>, <airfrance-redeem.us>, and <airfrance-ticket.us> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. On September 13, 2018, Godaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <airfrance-book.us> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. and GoDaddy.com, LLC verified that Respondent is bound by their respective registration agreements and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On September 14, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 4, 2018 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@airfrance-booking.us, postmaster@airfrance-fly.us, postmaster@airfrance-fr.us, postmaster@airfrance-get.us, postmaster@airfrance-pass.us, postmaster@airfrance-book.us, postmaster@airfrance-claim.us, postmaster@airfrance-redeem.us, and postmaster@airfrance-ticket.us. Also on September 14, 2018, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 8, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Société Air France, has rights in the AIR FRANCE and AIRFRANCE marks based upon its registration of the marks with trademark agencies around the world (e.g., AIR FRANCE—Reg. No. 2,876,220 registered Aug. 24, 2004 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”); AIRFRANCE—Reg. No. 1,123,935 registered May 25, 2012 with the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”)). See Compl. Annexes B2 and B5. Respondent’s <airfrance-booking.us>, <airfrance-fly.us>, <airfrance-fr.us>, <airfrance-get.us>, <airfrance-pass.us>, <airfrance-claim.us>, <airfrance-redeem.us>, <airfrance-ticket.us>, and <airfrance-book.us> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks because Respondent includes the entire AIR FRANCE or AIRFRANCE mark in the domain names and adds a hyphen, various generic terms, and the country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “.us.”
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <airfrance-booking.us>, <airfrance-fly.us>, <airfrance-fr.us>, <airfrance-get.us>, <airfrance-pass.us>, <airfrance-claim.us>, <airfrance-redeem.us>, <airfrance-ticket.us>, and <airfrance-book.us> domain names because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant’s mark in any fashion. Additionally, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests because Respondent inactively holds the disputed domain names, has historically used the <airfrance-fr.us> in connection with a phishing scheme, and used one or more of the domains to host a blog with a review of a Bollywood movie. See Compl. Annexes H, I, and J.
Respondent registered and uses the <airfrance-booking.us>, <airfrance-fly.us>, <airfrance-fr.us>, <airfrance-get.us>, <airfrance-pass.us>, <airfrance-claim.us>, <airfrance-redeem.us>, <airfrance-ticket.us>, and <airfrance-book.us> domain names in bad faith. Respondent exhibits a pattern of bad faith registration of domain names infringing on other famous marks. Further, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AIR FRANCE and AIRFRANCE marks prior to registering the disputed domain names.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The disputed domain names were registered on the following dates: <airfrance-fly.us> (August 31, 2017), <airfrance-ticket.us> (September 5, 2017), <airfrance-fr.us> (September 7, 2017), <airfrance-get.us> (September 7, 2017), <airfrance-claim.us> (September 7, 2017), <airfrance-pass.us> (September 8, 2017), <airfrance-redeem.us> (September 8, 2017); <airfrance-booking.us> (September 20, 2017), and <airfrance-book.us> (October 30. 2017).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar with Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademarks; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent 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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar with Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademarks. Complainant has adequately plead its rights and interests in and to these trademarks. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain names by appropriating Complainant’s marks, AIR FRANCE and AIRFRANCE in total and adding related generic words plus the country code g TLD “.us.” This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademarks
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar with Complainant’s trademarks.
The Panel further finds that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in or to the dispute domain name. Respondent has no right, permission or license to register the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.
Further, although Complainant does not specifically allege with precise language, it appears that it is claiming that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant claims Respondent inactively holds the domain names and has also used one or more of them to resolve to a blog containing a review of a Bollywood movie and a page featuring a survey, which Complainant alleges Respondent used in connection with a phishing scheme. Complainant provides screenshots showing that all nine of the disputed domain names resolve to error pages. See Compl. Annex H. Complainant also provides a screenshot from an archive showing the <airfrance-fr.us> domain name at one time resolved to webpage featuring Complainant’s AIRFRANCE mark and a survey. See Compl. Annex J.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names.
The Panel also finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names. Complainant argues that Respondent exhibits a pattern of bad faith registration by the registration of multiple domain names infringing on other airlines’ marks. A pattern of bad faith registration may be sufficient to support a finding of bad faith and can be shown through evidence that Respondent registered multiple domains infringing on other famous marks. See Bid Industrial Holdings (Proprietary) Limited v. ZhangPeng / Zhang Peng, FA 1743105 (Forum Sep. 15, 2017) (finding that the complainant’s submission of WHOIS evidence that listed the respondent as the registrant of other domain names incorporating third-party trademarks was sufficient to establish that the respondent had a pattern of registering and using domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). Here, Complainant provides a Reverse Whois for Respondent’s email address, which shows that Respondent owns 172 domain names, most of which incorporate other airlines’ marks. See Compl. Annex K. Complainant also provides Whois records for five domain names incorporating the mark of another airline, AirCanada, which list Respondent as registrant. See Compl. Annex L-P.
Complainant also argues the a pattern of bad faith registration based on findings against Respondent in previous UDRP proceedings. A history of adverse UDRP decisions may show a pattern of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Maurice Sporting Goods, Inc. v. Xiaodong Peng, FA1506001625928 (Forum Aug. 1, 2015) (finding that the respondent had engaged in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been unsuccessful in three previous UDRP cases). Complainant cites two UDRP proceedings in which previous Panels found Respondent had registered or used the domain names at issue in bad faith.
Further, Complainant asserts Respondent’s registration of domain names that are confusingly similar to its AIR FRANCE and AIRFRANCE marks, which are obviously connected with Complainant and well known, indicates Respondent proceeded with actual knowledge of Complainant’s marks and its rights thereto. Complainant asserts that its business is well known and provides INDRP precedent to support the contention. See Compl. Annex C. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AIR FRANCE and AIRFRANCE marks prior to its registration of the disputed domain names.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names.
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the<airfrance-booking.us>, <airfrance-fly.us>, <airfrance-fr.us>, <airfrance-get.us>, <airfrance-pass.us>, <airfrance-book.us>, <airfrance-claim.us>, <airfrance-redeem.us>, and <airfrance-ticket.us> domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: October 8, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page