American Airlines, Inc., DFW Airport, TX, USA
COMPLAINANT,

vs.

Data Art Corporation, North Hollywood, CA, USA
RESPONDENT.

DECISION
Claim Number: FA0005000094908

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME(s) 

The domain name at issue is “AMERICANAIRLINE.COM”, registered with Network Solutions, Inc (“NSI”).

PANELIST

Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on 05/26/2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on 05/26/2000. 

On 06/05/2000, NSI confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name “AMERICANAIRLINE.COM” is registered with NSI and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  NSI has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions Service Agreement Version 4.0 and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On 06/05/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of 06/26/2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via email, post and fax, and to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts by email.

On 06/26/2000, having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, The Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On 06/27/2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist(s).

Having reviewed the communications records in the case file, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that The Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Uniform Rules "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its Decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN 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 the Respondent.

RELIEF SOUGHT

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is identical to and confusingly similar to its marks registered for and in use by the Complainant.  Further, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the domain name, and that the respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.        

B.     Respondent

The Respondent submitted no response in this matter.

FINDINGS

The Complainant owns numerous registered trademarks that consist of the words “American Airlines.”  One of these trademark registrations dates back as early as 1934. 

The Respondent registered the domain name “AMERICANAIRLINE.COM” on 08/11/1997.

When the Respondent’s website is accessed, the user is linked to a third party site, www.mail.com, offering email solutions for corporations, ISPs, and advertisers.  On 09/03/1999, the Complainant sent the Respondent correspondence requesting that the Respondent cancel the name and cease infringing on the Complainant’s trademarks.   

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy (“Policy”) directs that the complainant must prove each of the following three elements to support a claim that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant has offered exhibits in support of its claims, whereas the Respondent has submitted no response in the matter.  The Respondent’s failure to dispute the allegations of the Complainant permits the inference that the Complainant’s allegations are true.  Further, the Respondent’s failure to respond permits the inference that the Respondent knows that its website is misleading and is intentionally diverting business from the Complainant.  See Hewlett-Packard Company v. Full System, FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000).  Applying the Policy to the issue in this case furthers these inferences.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The domain name in question is effectively identical and certainly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered and well-known trademarks. 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent does not assert any rights or legitimate interests to the domain name in question. 

The name does not reflect a name that the Respondent is commonly known by.  Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  Furthermore, the Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.  The Respondent is not even utilizing the site in connection with air transportation related services.  The Respondent is not making a legitimate use of the domain name; instead, it is trying to divert air travelers to another unrelated site.  See Nabisco Brands v. The Patron Group, Inc., D2000-0032 (WIPO Feb. 23, 2000). 

Bad Faith

The Respondent does not deny that its actions were taken in bad faith.

Intentionally trying to divert Internet users to alternative sites is evidence of bad faith.  Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  The Respondent’s continuing use of the site, with knowledge that he had no right to use the Complainant’s mark, reveals a willful attempt to attract users to an alternative site and cause confusion with the Complainant’s mark.  Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Marriott Int’l v. Café au lait, FA 93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum March 13, 2000).  

Based on the preceding argument, the panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.

DECISION

Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), it is the decision of the panelist that the requested relief be granted.  Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name, “AMERICANAIRLINE.COM”, be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson

Dated: July 11, 2000

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page