WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Emirates Group Headquarters v. Erica Vennum
Case No. D2008-0883
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Emirates Group Headquarters, Dubai, of United Arab Emirates, represented by DLA Piper UK LLP, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”).
The Respondent is Erica Vennum, Emery Ville, California, of United States of America (“US”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <emirate-airlineservices.com> is registered with Melbourne IT trading as Internet Names Worldwide.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 10, 2008. On June 11, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to Melbourne IT trading as Internet Names Worldwide a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On June 13, 2008, Melbourne IT trading as Internet Names Worldwide transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 17, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 7, 2008. Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 9, 2008.
The Center appointed Ross Carson as the sole panelist in this matter on July 21, 2008. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
Complainant is the official international airline of the United Arab Emirates and is one of the world’s fastest growing airlines. It flies to over 100 destinations in 62 countries. In addition to operating passenger air services, Complainant’s business activities also include: freight services (Emirates Sky Cargo); ground logistics and tourism (Arabian Adventures); and aircraft engineering and maintenance (Emirates Engineering). Complainant also carries out business activities as an outbound tour operator under the name Emirates Holidays.
Complainant has spent considerable time and money promoting its business. Marketing staff in Complainant’s head office in Dubai co-ordinate marketing of Complainant’s services. Sales teams promote Complainant’s services via road shows, seminars and personal visits to members of the travel industry –such as travel agents. Complainant’s services are also promoted to consumers by the staff of Complainant’s offices or agents, which are located in numerous cities around the world and through the Complainant’s website at “www.emirates.com”.
Complainant announced record group net profits for the financial year ending March 31, 2008 of Dhs 5.02 million (USD 1.37 million). Total Group revenue in 2007-08 was AED 41,155 million, a considerable increase of AED 10,024 million (32.2%) over the previous year. Group revenue consisted of operating revenue of AED 38,015 million and other income of AED 3,140 million (2006-07: AED 29,828 million and AED 1,304 million).
Complainant owns a significant international trade mark portfolio for or including the trade mark EMIRATES. Complainant is the registered owner of UK registered trade mark number 2023709 for EMIRATES registered in Class 39 for services including airline services, air transportation services and aircraft chartering services, which was registered in March 1996; CTM trade mark 22137 for EMIRATES in Class 39 for services including airline services, air transportation services and aircraft chartering services, which was registered in August 1998; CTM trade mark 22111 for the trade mark EMIRATES HOLIDAYS and UK registered trade mark number 2023708 for EMIRATES HOLIDAYS both for services including package holiday services, tour arrangements, hotel arrangement services; and US trade mark registration number 2254666 for EMIRATES registered in June 1999 for services including air transportation services and aircraft chartering services.
The domain name in dispute <emirate-airlineservices.com> was registered on April 1, 2008.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
A.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant submits that the only difference between the domain name in dispute and the Complainant’s EMIRATES trade mark is the addition of a hyphen and the term “airlineservices”. The term airline services is descriptive of the services provided by Complainant in association with its trade mark EMIRATES. Previous panels have held that the addition of descriptive term to a complainant’s trade mark does not avoid confusing similarity. In Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd v. Steel Vertigogo, WIPO Case No. D2001-0020 (Arthur Guinness Son & Co. made a complaint in respect of the domain name <guinessbeer com>. The panel held that: “The domain name differs from the trademark only by the addition of the word “beer” and the spelling of the name with one “N” instead of two. Neither of these differences serve to negative the dominant impression created by the word GUINNESS. The Panel therefore finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which Complainant has rights”).
Complainant further submits that the addition of a generic top level domain such as “.com” is irrelevant when determining whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a protected mark. See for example Rollerblade v. McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.
A.2 No Rights or Legitimate Interests in respect of the Domain Name
Complainant submits that Respondent cannot demonstrate any circumstances that would evidence rights or legitimate interests in the domain name for the purpose of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
Complainant states that the website associated with the domain name in dispute displays a number of the Complainant’s trade marks and also reproduces the pictures and information provided on the Complainant’s website virtually in its entirety. As a consequence, the website looks almost identical to and is virtually indistinguishable from the Complainant’s own website at “www.emirates.com”. The website associated with the domain name in dispute is being used by Respondent to operate a scam devised to extract money from users of the website who believe they are applying for a job with Complainant.
Complainant further states that the website contains a page entitled “Career at Emirates” and also has a “Contact Us” page. When a user contacts the website regarding employment they receive correspondence from an alleged, HR Manager of “Emirate Airline”. The user is sent an employment contract and is asked to contact a UK travel agent at a specified address in Lancashire to pay for their visa and flights, which it is promised will be reimbursed to them within 5 days of the submission of an expense report. The correspondence states “This is to mark the employees seriousness/readiness to work in the Emirate Airline”. The appointment letter contains a reference to the website and therefore the function of the website is to attract users to contact “Emirates Airline” and to add an air of legitimacy to the scam.
Complainant submits that the type of activities carried out at the website give no justification for Respondent’s use and registration of the domain name in dispute. Complainant further states that the domain name in dispute cannot be used by Respondent in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services in view of Complainant’s reputation and the Complainant’s trade marks (paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy). Complainant further submits that the domain name in dispute could not have been chosen for any reason other than its association with Complainant’s trade marks and Respondent must have been aware of Complainant at the time of registration of the domain name in dispute.
A.3 Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant states that its trade mark EMIRATES is widely known in association with airlines. Complainant’s trade marks including EMIRATES were registered in many countries for many years before Respondent registered the domain name in dispute on April 1, 2008. The inclusion of the descriptive term “airlineservices” in the domain name in dispute shows that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s trade mark EMIRATES and services offered in association therewith at the date of registration of the domain name in dispute.
Complainant states that based on the facts stated in paragraph A.2 immediately above, Respondent is using the website associated with the domain name in dispute to operate a scam devised to extract money from users who contact the website with a view to obtain a job with Complainant. Users of the website associated with the domain name in dispute will be under the impression that they are applying for a job with Complainant and Respondent’s actions are therefore highly likely to damage Complainant’s reputation.
Complainant further submits that Respondent is involved in opportunistic bad faith in adopting, registering and using the confusingly similar domain name in dispute in association with a webpage associated with the services provided by Complainant. See, Xerox Corp v. Stonybrook Investments Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2001-0380, where the panel stated that the domain names in question “are so obviously connected with the Complainant and its services that their very use by someone with no connection with the Complainant suggests ‘opportunistic bad faith”.
Complainant submits that paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a non-exclusive list of factors that evidence bad faith. Respondent’s use of the domain name falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv). Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trade mark. Complainant states that it is important to note, as the panel did in Bradford & Bingley Plc v. Registrant info@fashionID.com 987654321, WIPO Case No. D2002-0499, that “a domain name is more than a mere Internet address. It often identifies the Internet site to those who reach it, and sends a message that the site is owned by, sponsored by, affiliated with, or endorsed by the person with the name, or owning the trademark, reflected in the domain name.”
B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
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) 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 fact that Respondent did not submit a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant. The failure of Respondent to file a Response results in the Panel drawing certain inferences from Complainant’s evidence. The Panel may accept all reasonable and supported allegations and inferences following there from in the Complaint as true. Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, WIPO Case No. D2000-0403.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the domain name in dispute is identical to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant has established that it has widely used and is registered as the owner of trade marks for or including EMIRATES registered in relation to airline and related services in many countries as described in paragraph 4 above. Complainant’s registered trade mark was registered and used for many years prior to the date of registration of the domain name in dispute on April 1, 2008.
The domain name in dispute, <emirate-airlineservices.com>, consists of the singular of Complainant’s registered trade mark for or including EMIRATES in combination with the descriptive term “airlineservices”. The use of the singular of Complainant’s trade mark EMIRATES does not distinguish the domain name in dispute from Complainant’s trade mark. This is especially so when Complainant’s registered trademark rights in the trade mark EMIRATES are used and registered in relation to airline services. WIPO panels have repeatedly held that merely adding a descriptive addition or generic term to a trade mark, such as “news” or “information” does not sufficiently distinguish the domain name from the trade mark. See, e.g., Reuters Limited v. Global net 2000, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0441.
UDRP panels have repeatedly held that the specific top level of the domain name such as “.org”, “.net”, or “.com” do not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr., WIPO Case No. D2000-1525 holding that confusing similarity under the Policy is decided upon the inclusion of a trademark in the domain name; and Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the registered trademark in which Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy Complainant must prove that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in dispute.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has never been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant’s registered trade mark.
The web pages associated with the domain name in dispute display a number of Complainant’s trade marks and also reproduce the pictures and information provided on Complainant’s website virtually in its entirety. Respondent’s website associated with the domain name in dispute looks almost identical to and strongly resembles the Complainant’s own website at “www.emirates.com”.
Respondent’s website associated with the domain name in dispute contains a page entitled “Career at Emirates” and also has a “Contact Us” page. When a user contacts the website regarding employment they receive correspondence from an alleged, HR Manager of “Emirate Airline”. The user is sent an employment contract and is asked to contact a UK travel agent at an address in Lancashire. In addition the user is told to pay in advance for their visa and flights, which it is promised will be reimbursed to them within 5 days of the submission of an expense report. The correspondence states “This is to mark the employees seriousness/readiness to work in the Emirate Airline. The appointment letter contains a reference to Respondent’s website and therefore the function of the website is to attract users to contact “Emirates Airline” when the Internet user is in fact contacting Respondent or her representative.
The use of the website associated with the domain name in dispute has the appearance of being a scheme devised to extract money from users of Respondent’s website who believe they are applying for a job from Complainant and as such is not a legitimate use of the domain name in dispute.
It is difficult for a complainant to prove the negative that a respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in a domain name in dispute. Respondent was given the opportunity by way of reply to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in dispute pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Previous decisions under the UDRP have found it sufficient for a complainant to make a prima facie showing that a respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in dispute. Once this showing is met, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Here, Respondent did not file a Response nor avail herself of the benefits of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in dispute.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy Complainant must prove that the domain name in dispute has been registered and used in bad faith.
C.1 Domain Name Registered in Bad Faith
Complainant has established that it has widely used and is registered as the owner of trade marks for or including EMIRATES registered in relation to airline and related services in many countries as described in paragraph 4 above. The domain name in dispute, <emirate-airlineservices.com>, consists of the singular of Complainant’s registered trade mark for or including EMIRATES in combination with the descriptive term “airlineservices”. The registration of the domain name in dispute comprised of Complainant’s trade mark and the services which Complainant provides in association with its trade mark shows that Respondent registered the domain name in dispute with knowledge of Complainant’s trade mark EMIRATES and knowledge of the services provided by Complainant in association with the services.
The Panel finds that Respondent registered the domain name in dispute in bad faith.
C.2. Domain Name Used in Bad Faith
Respondent’s website associated with the domain name in dispute displays a number of Complainant’s trade marks and also reproduces the pictures and information provided on Complainant’s own website at “www.emirates.com”. Respondent’s website associated with the domain name in dispute contains a page entitled “Career at Emirates” and also has a “Contact Us” page. When a user contacts the website regarding employment they receive correspondence from an alleged, HR Manager of “Emirate Airline”. The user is sent an employment contract and is asked to contact a UK travel agent at a specific address in Lancashire. Additionally the user is requested to pay for their visa and flights, which it is promised will be reimbursed to them within 5 days of the submission of an expense report. The correspondence states “This is to mark the employees seriousness/readiness to work in the Emirate Airline”. The arrangement whereby Respondent passes herself off as Complainant and requests payment for a visa and flights to the United Arab Emirates to obtain employment with Complainant constitute bad faith use of the domain name in dispute under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Respondent is involved in opportunistic bad faith in adopting, registering and using the confusingly similar domain name in dispute in association with a webpage associated with the services provided by Complainant. See, Xerox Corp v Stonybrook Investments Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2001-0380, where the Panel stated that the domain names in question “are so obviously connected with the Complainant and its services that their very use by someone with no connection with the Complainant suggests ‘opportunistic bad faith”.
The Panel finds that Respondent is using the domain name in dispute in bad faith.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <emirate-airlineservices.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Ross Carson
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 3, 2008