The American Automobile Association, Inc. v.
Demand Domains, Inc.
Claim Number: FA0901001241641
PARTIES
Complainant is The American Automobile Association, Inc. (“Complainant”),
represented by Roger A. Ford, of Covington & Burlington LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <aaattravel.com>,
registered with Enom, Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and
impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in
serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Joel M. Grossman as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on January 7, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a
hard copy of the Complaint on January 8, 2009.
On January 8, 2009, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration
Forum that the <aaattravel.com>
domain name is registered with Enom, Inc. and that the Respondent is the
current registrant of the name. Enom,
Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, Inc. registration
agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by
third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (the “Policy”).
On January 14, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of February 3, 2009 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint,
was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and
persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and
billing contacts, and to postmaster@aaattravel.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on
February 2, 2009.
On February 7, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Joel M. Grossman as Panelist.
A timely Additional Submission from Complainant was
received on February 9, 2009.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent
to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant first asserts that the domain name is confusingly similar
to a mark in which it has rights. To this end Complainant notes that it has
various registered trademarks for the “AAA” mark. Complainant further notes
that the mark is wholly incorporated in the domain name with the generic term
“travel.” The misspelling of the word travel is simply an example of
typosquatting and does not in any manner lessen the confusion. Complainant next
argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the name, noting
that (1) it is not commonly known by the name; (2) Respondent’s use of the name
does not constitute a bona fide
offering of goods or services, since the name is used to confuse Internet users
seeking Complainant’s services and redirecting them to a website offering
products which compete with Complainant’s products; (3) the use of the name is
not a legitimate noncommercial use since Respondent is attempting to earn
pay-per-click fees; and (4) Respondent has tried to shield its name.
Finally, Complainant asserts that the domain name was registered and is
being used in bad faith. The Complainant points out that its mark is very
famous and Respondent registered the name with either actual or constructive
knowledge of the mark, thus evidencing bad faith. In addition, Complainant
asserts that the domain name is being used in bad faith since it is causing
confused Internet users attempting to find Complainant’s site to instead be
directed to a website that offers competing products.
B. Respondent
Respondent does not specifically address the three factors in UDRP
cases other than to stress that it did not register the name or use the name in
bad faith. Respondent states that it is willing to transfer the name to
Complainant.
C. Additional Submissions
In its Additional Submission Complainant points out that given the
Respondent’s statement in the Response that it does not object to the transfer
of the domain name to Complainant, the Panel may order the domain name
transferred without the need for further analysis.
FINDINGS
Because the Respondent stipulates to the
transfer of the domain name to Complainant, the Panel chooses not to make
specific findings in this matter. See Boehringer
Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd.-Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Jan. 9, 2003).
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 the 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 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.
As noted above, the Panel makes no findings
due to Respondent’s stated willingness to transfer the domain name to
Complainant.
See above.
See above.
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy,
the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <aaattravel.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Joel M. Grossman, Panelist
Dated: February 20, 2009
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum