DECISION

 

Textron Innovations Inc. v. Robert Becker

Claim Number: FA2404002095234

PARTIES

Complainant is Textron Innovations Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jeremiah A. Pastrick, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Robert Becker ("Respondent"), represented by Rachel Young Fields of Hunter, Maclean, Exley & Dunn, P.C., Georgia, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <icessna.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

David P. Miranda, Esq., as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 28, 2024; Forum received payment on April 28, 2024.

 

On April 29, 2024, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <icessna.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 May 2, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 28, 2024 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@icessna.com. Also on May 2, 2024, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 24, 2024.

 

On May 29, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David P. Miranda, Esq., 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Textron Innovations Inc., is the owner of the CESSNA marks that it licenses exclusively to Textron Aviation ("TAV"). Textron Innovations Inc. is an affiliate of Textron.

Founded in 1923, Textron has grown into a network of businesses with total revenues of $13.4 billion (Textron is ranked 219th 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.

 

Cessna Aircraft was formed when Clyde Cessna and Victor Roos became partners in the Cessna-Roos Aircraft Company in 1927. Today Cessna is owned and operated by Textron under its Textron Aviation business segment. The Cessna brand remains one of the most known private aircraft brands in the world with a wide breadth of products finding solutions for the novice to most advanced aviator.

 

Complainant, Textron Innovations Inc. is the owner of the following federal trademark registrations:

 

CESSNA

U.S. Trademark Registration Number 3224322 issued April 3, 2007 in International Class 14 for lapel pins and other jewelry; IC 16 for calendars and writing pens; IC 18 for luggage, duffel bags, and luggage tags; and IC 28 for scale model airplanes.

 

CESSNA

U.S. Trademark Registration Number 867435 issued April 1, 1969 in International Class 12 for "AIRPLANES AND PARTS THEREOF".

 

CESSNA

U.S. Trademark Registration Number 896675 issued August 11, 1970 in International Class 37 for "AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES".

 

Image - Cessna

U.S. Trademark Registration Number 2315932 issued February 8, 2000 in International Class 36 for "banking services, namely, the financing of leasing and purchasing of aircraft".

 

Image - Cessna

 

U.S. Trademark Registration Number 1269737 issued March 13, 1984 in International Class 12 for "Airplanes and Structural Parts Thereof".

 

Image - Cessna

 

U.S. Trademark Registration Number 1487602 issued May 10, 1988 in International Class 25 for "CLOTHING, NAMELY, JACKETS, SHIRTS AND CAPS".

 

The domain name <icessna.com> is confusingly similar/identical to Complainant's registered Cessna marks.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It is unknown whether Respondent's true name utilizes some form of "iCessna" since Respondent has hidden its true identity via a domain registration proxy service.

 

Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods and services or for any legitimate or fair use because the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.

 

Complainant has not licensed nor otherwise permitted any organization to utilize its marks in connection with any goods or services or to own any domain names incorporating its mark.

 

Respondent both registered and is using the domain name at issue in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4b(iv) in that Respondent is: (1) using the <icessna.com> domain name to intentionally disrupt the business of Complainant; and (2) using the domain name in an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website.

 

Complainant's registered CESSNA trademark has a date of first use of 1946 and predates Respondent's domain registration. Moreover, it cannot be argued in good faith that Respondent did not know about the existence of Complainant's CESSNA marks when it registered the domain name at issue.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent Robert Becker contends he has over 20 years' experience in the aviation industry. He is a licensed Single and Multi-Engine Commercial pilot, a Certified Flight and Instrument Instructor, a licensed Airframe and Powerplant mechanic and he holds FAA Inspection Authorization. Indirectly, through a wholly owned company, he owns five Cessna aircraft.

 

Respondent's plan when registering <icessna.com> (the "Domain") and expending significant web development costs to date on the site hosted at the Domain (the "Website") was to create a marketplace for third-party aviation professionals to be able to post Cessna aircraft for sale or rent, post their Cessna aircraft related services (e.g., pilot, instructor, mechanic, engineer), and list Cessna aircraft parts for sale and for others in the market for such Cessna-specific goods and services to connect with those offering them for sale.

 

In or about June 2020, Respondent retained a web development company to begin building a site with the functionality needed for the platform. Respondent encountered some issues with his web developer and, after paying approximately $10,000, the Website build was put on hold while Respondent focused on other unrelated projects.

 

Respondent's website is currently operating in beta mode and is otherwise incomplete. The landing page reflects this by including the statement "BETA v1.2."

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established each of the elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, and as such the domain name at issue shall be transferred from Respondent to the Complainant.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

A domain name, which utilizes a trademark along with an additional descriptive or generic term (in this case, adding the letter "i") does not mitigate the confusing use of the trademark. See, for example, Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Burnup, FA1307001508768 (Forum, Aug. 13, 2013), finding the addition of generic or descriptive term, "stock" to Lockheed Martin insufficient to defeat confusing similarity; Giorgio Armani S.p.A Swiss Branch, Mendriso v. Chung, Case No. D2013-0821 ("adding purely descriptive words which define the product or service offered via the website serves only to compound similarity when used in conjunction with a mark to which the Complainant has rights."); Victoria's Secret v. Erno Lokhorst, FA0101000096556 (Forum, March 5, 2001) finding victoriassecretoutlet.com to be confusingly similar to Complainant's VICTORIA'S SECRET trademark; and ULTA Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc. v. ultabeautyoutlet.com, FA1505001619434 (Forum, June 25, 2015) finding the domain ultabeauty-outlet.com confusingly similar to Complainant's ULTA BEAUTY mark.

 

In light of Complainant's long-standing registration and use of the CESSNA mark in connection with a wide variety of goods, the Panel finds the domain name <icessna.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered CESSNA marks.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has met its initial burden of showing Respondent having no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue and that its purpose for registering the <icessna.com> domain is to utilize these domains to divert traffic to its website, capitalize upon the confusion that consumers will likely have when navigating to this domain and unfairly profit from these illegitimate and unauthorized uses of the CESSNA mark in this domain.

 

The passive holding of a domain name does not show a legitimate use or bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent's contention that it has created a beta site does not sufficiently establish its rights or legitimate interests. See Teachers Ins. and Annuity Ass'n of Am. v. Wreaks Commc'ns Group, D2006-0483 (WIPO June 15, 2006) ("passive holding of a domain name does not constitute 'legitimate non- commercial or fair use'"); and TMP Int'l, Inc. v. Baker Enters., FA 204112 (Forum Dec. 6, 2003) ("[T]he Panel concludes that Respondent's [failure to make an active use] of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶4(a) (ii)"). see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) the respondent is not a licensee of the complainant; (2) the complainant's prior rights in the domain name precede the respondent's registration; (3) the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Regarding bad faith registration in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), panels have found that registration of a confusingly similar domain with knowledge of a Complainant's rights in a mark constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See, for example, Bluegreen Corp. v. eGo, FA 128793 (Forum Dec. 16, 2002) finding bad faith where the method by which the respondent acquired the disputed domain names indicated that the respondent understood the domain names incorporated marks in which the complainant had rights; and ULTA Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc. v. ultabeautyoutlet.com, FA1505001619434 (Forum, June 25, 2015) concluding that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights and therefore registered its domain in bad faith.

 

As for bad faith registration in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), past panels have found the use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with a complainant or to attract customers to a site for commercial gain to constitute bad faith use and registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See, for example, MathForum.com, LLC v. Weiguang Huang, D2000-0743 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2000) finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's mark and the domain name was used to host a commercial website that offered similar services offered by the complainant under its mark; Hunter Fan Co. v. MSS, FA 98067 (Forum Aug. 23, 2001) finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to sell the complainant's products without permission and mislead Internet users by implying that the respondent was affiliated with the complainant; HUGO BOSS Trademark Management GmbH & Co. KG v. Luigii Cardinaee FA1406001566126 (Forum August 4, 2014) ("Complainant states that Respondent's disputed domain names resolve to a website that used the HUGO BOSS logo to convey the misleading impression that Respondent is associated with Complainant's organization.")

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the domain in violation of the Policy.

 

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 <icessna.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David P. Miranda, Esq., Panelist

Dated: June 19, 2024