WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

American Airlines, Inc. v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. / Hildegard Gruener, and Ethan Rhodes

Case No. D2021-2106

1. The Parties

Complainant is American Airlines, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, United States.

Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., Bahamas / Hildegard Gruener, Austria, and Ethan Rhodes, United Kingdom.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <aaboardingpass.com>, <aacargoschedules.com>, <aaflightinformation.com>, <aaflightschedule.com>, <aa-flight-tracker.com>, <aaflighttracker.com>, <aaflighttrackerrealtime.com>, <americanairline-com.com>, <americanairlinescheaptickets.com>, <americanairlines-com.com>, <americanairlinesflightcheckin.com>, <americanairlineticketprices.com> are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and the disputed domain names <aa-com.com>, <aaflightcheckin.com> are registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (hereinafter all the disputed domain names referred together as the Domain Names).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 1, 2021. On July 2, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On July 5, 2021, the Registrar Internet Domain Service BS Corp transmitted by email to the Center its verification response in relation to the <aa-com.com>, <aaflightcheckin.com> Domain Names disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. On July 6, 2021, the Registrar GoDaddy.com, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response in relation to the <aaboardingpass.com>, <aacargoschedules.com>, <aaflightinformation.com>, <aaflightschedule.com>, <aa-flight-tracker.com>, <aaflighttracker.com>, <aaflighttrackerrealtime.com>, <americanairline-com.com>, <americanairlinescheaptickets.com>, <americanairlines-com.com>, <americanairlinesflightcheckin.com>, <americanairlineticketprices.com> Domain Names disclosing registrant and contact information for these Domain Names, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on July 9, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrars, and inviting Complainant to submit an amended Complaint. Complainant filed the first amended Complaint on July 14, 2021 and the second Amended Complaint on July 25, 2021.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 26, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 15, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 18, 2021.

The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on August 26, 2021. 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. Preliminary procedural issue: Consolidation of Respondents

The Panel has considered the possible consolidation of the Complaint for the Domain Names. According to WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2, “Where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario”.

In the present case, the Panel notes the following features of the Domain Names and arguments submitted by Complainant in favor of the consolidation of the Domain Names:

- the Domain Names share the same structure and include the brands AA and / or AMERICAN AIRLINES along with other additional words;
- the registrar GoDaddy.com, LLC is the same for all but two of the Domain Names, which also have a common registrar namely Internet Domain Service BS Corp;
- all but three of the Domain Names were registered from the same purported location in Austria;
- the Domain Names all use the identical name server (“b2bguys.ru”) located at the same IP address (“5.79.121.147”);
- all but two of the Domain Names were registered in the same June 2015 time period, with the remaining two registered soon after in January 2016; and
- all but one of the Domain Names are being used in the same way, as they resolve to nearly identical websites (the Websites) that impersonate Complainant and display Complainant’s AA and AMERICAN AIRLINES marks, while redirecting to websites containing pay-per-click (PPC) or affiliate advertising, except for the Domain Name <aaflightcheckin.com>, which resolves to an inactive page.

All the above, along with the fact that the named Respondents did not submit any arguments to rebut this inference is taken into account by the Panel.

The Panel finds that the consolidation of the Domain Names is fair to the Parties, and Respondents have been given an opportunity to object to consolidation through the submission of pleadings to the Complaint (if indeed there is more than one Respondent for these Domain Names), but have chosen not to rebut the consolidation (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), sections 4.11.1 and 4.11.2; Virgin Enterprises Limited v. LINYANXIAO aka lin yanxiao, WIPO Case No. D2016-2302). Based on the Complaint, the Panel finds that it is more likely than not that the Domain Names are in common control of one entity; hence, the Panel grants the consolidation for the Domain Names (and will refer to these Respondents as “Respondent”).

5. Factual Background

Complainant is one of the largest air carriers in the world and enjoys a reputation internationally. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Complainant and its affiliates served over 350 destinations in over fifty countries, with nearly 7,000 daily flights. During its more than 90-year history, Complainant has developed global name-recognition and goodwill and has become a household name.

Over the past several decades, Complainant has used inter alia the marks AA and AMERICAN AIRLINES, alone or in combination with other words and designs. Complainant maintains its primary website at <aa.com>. It owns and operates the domain names <aa.com> and <americanairlines.com>, which redirects to <aa.com>.

According to the web analytics website “www.similarweb.com”, Complainant’s website has been ranked the number one website in the world in the category of Air Travel. Complainant has over 2.5 million followers on Facebook and 1.6 million followers of Twitter.

Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for AA and AMERICAN AIRLINES including:

- United States trademark registration No. 0514292, AA, registered on August 23, 1949;
- United States trademark registration No. 0514294, AMERICAN AIRLINES, registered on August 23, 1949; and
- United States trademark registration No. 2339639, AA.COM, registered on April 11, 2000.

Complainant has continuously used in commerce the AA mark since 1949 and the AMERICAN AIRLINES mark since 1934, while it created its website at “www.americanairlines.com” and “www.aa.com” in 1998, which it has continuously used in commerce since that date.

The Domain Names’ registration dates are as follows:

<AmericanAirlinesCheaptickets.com>, registered on June 11, 2015.
<AmericanAirlinesFlightCheckin.com>, registered on June 11, 2015.
<AA-com>.com, registered on June 20, 2015.
<AA-flight-tracker.com>, registered on June 17, 2015.
<AAboardingpass.com>, registered on June 14, 2015.
<AAcargoschedules.com>, registered on June 14, 2015.
<AAflightcheckin.com>, registered on June 14, 2015.
<AAflightinformation.com>, registered on June 11, 2015.
<AAflightschedule.com>, registered on June 11, 2015.
<AAflighttracker.com>, registered on June 11, 2015.
<AAflighttrackerrealtime.com>, registered on June 17, 2015.
<Americanairline-com.com>, registered on January 28, 2016.
<Americanairlines-com.com>, registered on January 28, 2016.
<Americanairlineticketprices.com>, registered on June 11, 2015.

All but one of the Domain Names lead to the Websites that impersonate Complainant and use Complainant’s AA and AMERICAN AIRLINES marks and purport to offer the ability to book flights. However, when Internet users click on the links to book a flight they are redirected to other websites that display PPC or affiliate advertising. The PPC websites contain PPC or affiliate advertising links to similar or competing travel websites, such as “www.expedia.com”, or redirect through affiliate links to gambling websites such as “www.sharkroulette.com/?ap=D00348”. The Domain Name <aaflightcheckin.com> resolves to an inactive error page.

6. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts that it has established all three elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

7. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:

(i) the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names; and
(iii) the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Names incorporate Complainant’s trademarks AA or AMERICAN AIRLINES as the case may be in their entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr., WIPO Case No. D2000-1525).

The addition of the words “cheap tickets”, “flight check in”, “com”, “flights”, “flight tracker”, “boarding pass”, “cargo schedules”, “flightinformation”, “flightschedule”, “flighttracker”, “flight tracker real time” and “ticket prices” or the omission of the final letter “s” from the word “airlines”, does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity as the AA or AMERICAN AIRLINES as the case may be remain recognizable within the Domain Names (Express Scripts, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Domaindeals, Domain Administrator, WIPO Case No. D2008-1302; mytheresa.com GmbH v. Domain Admin Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft, WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.8.).

The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not form part of the comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons (Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No. D2017-0275; Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik, WIPO Case No. D2002-0122).

The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the AA or AMERICAN AIRLINES as the case may be marks of Complainant.

Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:

(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Names or a name corresponding to the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the Domain Names, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names.

Respondent has not submitted any response and has not claimed any such rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Names. As per Complainant, Respondent was not authorized to register the Domain Names.

Prior to the notice of the dispute, Respondent did not demonstrate any use of the Domain Names or a trademark corresponding to the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

On the contrary, as Complainant demonstrated, all but one of the Domain Names resolve to the Websites containing content that suggests falsely that they are those of Complainant or of an entity affiliated or an authorized partner of Complainant. However, when users click on the links to book a flight they are redirected to other websites that display PPC or affiliate advertising. The PPC websites contain PPC or affiliate advertising links to similar or competing travel websites or redirect through affiliate links to gambling websites, thereby further possibly generating improperly commercial gain for Respondent.

A respondent’s use of a complainant’s mark to redirect users (e.g., to a competing site) would not support a claim to rights or legitimate interests (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.3).

The Domain Name <aaflightcheckin.com> resolves to an inactive error page.

Lastly, the nature of the Domain Names carries a risk of implied affiliation (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1).

The Panel finds that these circumstances do not confer upon Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names.

Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii).

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation”, are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Names in “bad faith”:

(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Names registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Names; or

(ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Names in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) that by using the Domain Names, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.

The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Names in bad faith.

Because the AA and AMERICAN AIRLINES marks had been widely used and registered by Complainant before the Domain Names registrations, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Names (Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID No. 09382953107339 dba Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Domain Administrator, Vertical Axis Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1754; Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226).

Respondent should have known about Complainant’s rights, as such knowledge is readily obtainable through a simple browser search (see Caesars World, Inc. v. Forum LLC, WIPO Case No. D2005-0517; Compart AG v. Compart.com / Vertical Axis Inc., WIPO Case No. D2009-0462).

Furthermore, Respondent could have conducted a trademark search and would have found Complainant’s prior registrations in respect of AA and AMERICAN AIRLINES (Citrix Online LLC v. Ramalinga Reddy Sanikommu Venkata, WIPO Case No. D2012-1338).

As regards the Websites, Complainant demonstrated that the content related to all the Domain Names but one was targeting Complainant’s trademark, as they displayed Complainant’s trademark and purported to offer the ability to book flights, while in reality when clicking on the links the Internet user was redirected to PPC sites which contained PPC or affiliate advertising links to similar or competing travel websites. This further supports registration in bad faith (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4), reinforcing the likelihood of confusion, as Internet users were likely to consider the Domain Names leading to the Websites, as in some way endorsed by or connected with Complainant (Marie Claire Album v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / Dexter Ouwehand, DO, WIPO Case No. D2017-1367). This also further supports knowledge of Complainant and its field of activity.

As regards bad faith use of the Domain Names, Complainant has demonstrated that all but one of the Domain Names were used to create the Websites, which displayed Complainant’s registered trademarks, thereby giving the false impression that they were operated by a company affiliated to Complainant or an authorised partner of Complainant. These Domain Names operated therefore by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark and business as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the websites they resolved to. This supports the finding of bad faith use (Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Priscilla Quaiotti Passos, WIPO Case No. D2011-0388 and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4).

The Domain Name uses furthermore tarnish Complainant’s reputation by suggesting a connection between Complainant and gambling services. This is an indication of bad faith use (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.12; Christian Dior Couture v. Identity Protection Service / Tom Birkett, WIPO Case No. D2014-1053).

One of the Domain Names currently does not resolve to an active website. The non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3).

Lastly, two of the Domain Names were registered with a privacy shield service to hide the registrant’s identity. Respondent’s concealment of the Domain Name holder’s identity through use of a privacy shield constitutes further indication of bad faith (Fifth Third Bancorp v. Secure Whois Information Service, WIPO Case No. D2006-0696).

Under these circumstances and on this record, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith.

Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).

8. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Names <aaboardingpass.com>, <aacargoschedules.com>, <aaflightinformation.com>, <aaflightschedule.com>, <aa-flight-tracker.com>, <aaflighttracker.com>, <aaflighttrackerrealtime.com>, <americanairline-com.com>, <americanairlinescheaptickets.com>, <americanairlines-com.com>, <americanairlinesflightcheckin.com>, <americanairlineticketprices.com>, <aa-com.com> and <aaflightcheckin.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Marina Perraki
Sole Panelist
Date: September 9, 2021