The Complainant is Société Air France, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., Bahamas.
The disputed domain names <airfṙance.com> (xn--airfance-7e0d.com), <airfranće.com> (xn--airfrane-68a.com), <airfranċe.com> (xn--airfrane-79a.com), <airfrȧnce.com> (xn--airfrnce-6dd.com) are registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 2, 2019. On May 2, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On May 3, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the 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” or “UDRP”), 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 8, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 28, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 31, 2109.
The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on June 6, 2019. 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.
The Complainant alleges that the Complainant, Société Air France, is an internationally recognized French airline passenger and freight company that has operated continually since 1933. The Complainant has a fleet of 552 airplanes and serves 314 cities in 116 countries with 2,300 flights daily. The Complainant operates the web portal at “www.airfrance.com”. At the web portal customers can find information about Complainant’s services and book flights. The Complainant owns many international trademarks including the mark AIR FRANCE (the “Mark”) which substantially pre-date the registration of the disputed domain names. See e.g. Société Air France v. Whois Privacy Corp, WIPO Case No. D2017-2143).
The Respondent registered the four disputed domain names as follows:
<airfṙance.com>(xn--airfance-7e0d.com) on June 5, 2018
<airfranće.com> (xn--airfrane-68a.com) on May 24, 2018
<airfranċe.com> (xn--airfrane-79a.com) on June 1st, 2018
<airfrȧnce.com> (xn--airfrnce-6dd.com) on March 27, 2018
The Complainant asserts the that that disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known mark because each of the disputed domain names replicates the Mark in its entirety with the exception of replacing a single letter in each disputed domain name with a non-ASCII character, namely ṙ, ć, ċ and ȧ, that closely resembles a corresponding ASCII character in the Complainant’s Mark. The Complainant asserts that while the current Internet configuration does not recognize non-ASCII characters, the domain names <airfṙance.com>, <airfranće.com>, <airfranċe.com> and <airfrȧnce.com> are translated into Punycode, an ASCII-Compatible Encoding (“ACE”) designed for use with Internationalized domain names. Thus <airfṙance.com> is <xn--airfance-7e0d.com>; <airfranće.com> is <xn--airfrane-68a.com>; <airfranċe.com> is <xn--airfrane-79a.com>; and <airfrȧnce.com> is <xn--airfrnce-6dd.com>. The translation is invisible to the Internet user. Complainant asserts the terms in the Punycode translation of the disputed domain names does not dispel confusing similarity. Société Air France v. Domain Administrator, China Capital, WIPO Case No. D2018-1220.
The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because there is no evidence that the Respondent operates any bona fide businesses known by the disputed domain names and the Complainant has disavowed any commercial relationship with the Respondent whereby the Respondent was licensed to use the Mark.
Finally, the Complainant contends the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith because the disputed domain names resolve to websites containing links to other related travel and non-travel services and the disputed domain names were designed to lure unsuspecting Internet users to the Respondent’s websites for commercial gain.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
The Panel finds that that disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark. The subtle use of a non-ASCII character closely resembling the Latin character in the Mark presents a visual image of the Mark that is likely to cause confusion. The non-ASCII characters are easily confused with the Latin characters in the Mark and present an almost imperceptible difference. L’Oréal v. Anonymous Corp, Ken, WIPO Case No. D2013-0710 (“The ELSEVE mark will be instantly recognised in the Domain Name <elsève.com>, notwithstanding that it is presented in lowercase with the accented “è”. The accent on the “e” is an insignificant difference.”). CELIO France, SAS v. Monsieur Ken Hocini, WIPO Case No. D2010-0444 (non-ASCII character (the letter é) had no influence over the confusing similarity); Confédération Nationale Du Crédit Mutuel v. Equitron, WIPO Case No. D2007-0622 (transferred domain name contained the non-ASCII character “é” in place of the simple ASCII character “e”.); Société Air France v. Domain Administrator, China Capital, WIPO Case No. D2018-1220 (transferring the disputed domain name <airfṛance.com> (xn--airfance-qf0d.com)).
The Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent failed to respond to the Complainant, and there is no evidence that the Respondent has engaged in a bona fide business under the disputed domain names. Additionally, the Complainant has disavowed any knowledge of the Respondent or providing the Respondent with any authority or permission to use the Mark or the disputed domain names. Guerlain SA v. Peikang, WIPO Case No. D2000-0055
The Complainant has satisfied the second requirement that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. The Complainant’s mark is well-known internationally. It is inconceivable that the Respondent would innocently and without knowledge of the Complainant’s Mark register within a four-month window four domain names essentially copying the Mark albeit utilizing the minor and insignificant replacement of a single ASCII character with similar looking non-ASCII characters. Moreover, the exhibits to the Complaint establish that three of disputed domain names resolve to active parking web pages promoting various commercial services including air travel related services. The Panel finds that the evidence establishes that the Respondent has registered an used these disputed domain names to confuse unsuspecting Internet users. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG. v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / J Gates, My Domain Estates, WIPO Case No. D2015-1542. The disputed domain name <airfranċe.com> activates a “404 error” message. Such passive holding under the circumstances of this case also constitutes bad faith registration and use. Accor, So Luxury HMC v. Youness Itsmail, WIPO Case No. D2015-0287.
The Complainant has satisfied the third requirement that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith, under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names, <airfṙance.com> (xn--airfance-7e0d.com), <airfranće.com> (xn--airfrane-68a.com), <airfranċe.com> (xn--airfrane-79a.com), <airfrȧnce.com> (xn--airfrnce-6dd.com) be transferred to the Complainant.
William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: June 20, 2019