Textron Innovations Inc. v. Eddie Hartfield / Textron Aviation
Claim Number: FA2303002034874
Complainant is Textron Innovations Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jeremiah A. Pastrick, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Eddie Hartfield / Textron Aviation (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <textorn.net>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with Google LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 7, 2023; Forum received payment on March 7, 2023.
On March 8, 2023, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <textorn.net> Domain Name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On March 10, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 30, 2023 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@textorn.net. Also on March 10, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 7, 2023 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, 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 Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
Complainant, Textron Innovations Inc., is the owner of the TEXTRON marks that it licenses to Textron Inc. (“Textron”). Textron Innovations Inc. is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Textron. Textron Aviation Inc. (“Textron Aviation”) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Textron and an affiliate of the Complainant.
Founded in 1923, Textron has grown into a network of businesses with total revenues of $12.4 billion (Textron is ranked 265th on the FORTUNE 500 list of largest U.S. companies), with approximately 34,000 employees with facilities and presence in 25 countries, serving a diverse and global customer base. Textron’s companies include some of the most respected global brands in transportation, including Bell, E-Z-GO golf carts and Cessna aircraft. Textron operates a web site at textron.net that features information regarding the company, its products, businesses and subsidiaries. The TEXTRON mark is, registered, inter alia, in the USA for diverse machinery components with first use recorded as 1976.
The Domain Name registered in 2023 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark simply transposing the letters ‘r’ and ‘o’ and adding the gTLD .com none of which prevents the said confusing similarity.
The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.
The Domain Name does not resolve to any web site but has been used for a fraudulent e mail scheme using the Complainant’s mark spelt correctly, and a business address and employee’s name associated with one of its companies. This cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. It is registration and use in bad faith.
Phishing per se is bad faith registration and use and an indication of lack of rights and legitimate interests.
Respondent has given false contact details on the WHOIS database saying it is associated with Textron Aviation, again evidence of bad faith and a lack of legitimate rights and interests.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the TEXTRON, registered, inter alia, in the USA for diverse machinery components with first use recorded as 1976.
The Domain Name registered in 2023 has been used for a phishing e mail scheme. Respondent has given false contact details on the WHOIS database saying it is associated with Textron Aviation.
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 and is being used in bad faith.
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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The Domain Name consist of a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant's TEXTRON mark (which is registered in the USA for diverse components for machines with first use recorded as 1976) transposing the letters ‘o’ and ‘r’ and adding the gTLD .com.
The Panel agrees that misspellings of a Complainant’s mark in a domain name do not prevent confusing similarity between that domain name and the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. See Capital One Financial Corp. v. Huang Li Technology Corp c/o Dynadot, FA 1620197 (Forum June 16, 2015) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent misspelled the word “bank” by transposing the letters “a” and “n,” attached the gTLD “.com,” and eliminated spacing with respect to the CAPITAL ONE BANK mark to create the <capitalonebnak.com> domain name.) As such the transposition of the letters ‘r’ and ‘o’ does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark.
The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish a domain name from a complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The Domain Name has been used in a fraudulent phishing attempt using the TEXTRON name spelt correctly, and a business address and employee’s name associated with one of the Complainant’s companies. This is deceptive and confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. (See DaVita Inc. v Cynthia Rochelo FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) finding that ‘Passing off in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non commercial or fair use’.)
Typosquatting is also an indication of a lack of rights or a legitimate interests. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA1503001610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) (“Users might mistakenly reach Respondent’s resolving website by misspelling Complainant’s mark. Taking advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). As is providing false contact details for the WhoIS database. The Respondent falsely suggests it is associated with Textron Aviation when it is not.
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not rebutted the prima face case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein.
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Impersonating a complainant by use of a complainant’s mark in a fraudulent phishing attempt is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use. See Microsoft Corporation v Terrence Green/ Whois Agent/Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr 4 2016)(finding that respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent e mails constituted bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4 (b)(iii). )
The use of the Complainant’s mark spelt correctly and a business address and employee’s name associated with one of the Complainant’s companies in the Respondent’s fraudulent phishing e mail scheme in this case shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and the Complainant’s rights, business and services.
Additionally the Domain Name seeks to take advantage of the situation where Internet users may make a typographical error. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use and disruption of the Complainant’s business. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (registering a domain name in the hope that Internet users will mistype the Complainant’s mark and be taken to the Respondent’s site is registration and use in bad faith). Typosquatting also indicates the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) (“Respondent’s domain name is a simple and popular variation of a trademark commonly used by typosquatters …Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inferrence [sic], Respondent’s actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.”).
Providing false information at the time of a domain name’s registration may be evidence of respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy 4(a)(iii). See Farouk Systems, Inc. v. Jack King / SLB, FA1505001618704 (Forum June 19, 2015) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where the respondent had provided false contact information when registering the disputed domain name). Here in the context of phishing providing false details that the Respondent is associated with Textron Aviation seems clearly in bad faith.
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <textorn.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: April 7, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page