About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Emirates v. Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Dibali Choudhari, AirEmirates.ORG

Case No. D2019-3007

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Emirates, United Arab Emirates, represented by Kochhar & Co., India.

The Respondent is Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org), United States of America / Dibali Choudhari, AirEmirates.ORG, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <airemirates.org> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 12, 2019. On December 12, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 13, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 13, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on December 14, 2019.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 December 18, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 7, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 8, 2020.

The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on January 22, 2020. 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

The Complainant, Emirates, is one of the largest airlines worldwide, internationally recognized under the trademark EMIRATES. The Complainant is operative in over 159 cities in 85 countries worldwide, with a fleet of 269 aircrafts.

The Complainant owns an impressive portfolio of trademark registrations for EMIRATES (e.g., Canadian trademark registration no. TMA485372, registered on November 6, 1997), as well as for marks formed by the name EMIRATES throughout the world. A sample proof of these registrations was attached to the Complaint as Annexes 9 and 10.

The Complainant has established rights over the mark EMIRATES. The Complainant has won several international awards, copies of which are attached as Annex 5. The Complainant is ranked amongst the best global brands in the world, and has been ranked in the list of Top 500 most valuable brands since 2015 by Brand Finance. Copies of the extract from the Brand Finance website is presented as Annex 7.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 18, 2019. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that apparently offers jobs in the air business.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant is the owner of registrations worldwide for the mark EMIRATES, which has been in use worldwide for over 35 years.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which incorporates the trademark EMIRATES, registered by the Complainant.

As stated by the documents presented, the registration and use of the trademark EMIRATES predates in decades the registration of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name directs to an active website, that advertises job offers in the airline business – the site shows several photos of airports and aircrafts, including one of A380 aircrafts of the Complainant. The disputed domain name has apparently been used in a fraudulent attempt to obtain payment from people searching jobs in the airline business. The Complainant brings a copy of its official Facebook page, where one person reports being victim of a fraudulent job offer (Annex 17).

In sum, the Complainant alleges that the registration and use of the disputed domain name is intentional to mislead Internet users by leading them to phishing scams, that it is clear that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

The Policy, in its paragraph 4(a), determines that three elements must be presented and duly proven by a complainant to obtain relief. These elements are:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;

(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Regarding the first of the elements, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has presented adequate proof of having rights in the mark EMIRATES. In addition, the Complainant has been providing air travel and cargo services worldwide under the EMIRATES mark for at least 35 years.

Further, the Panel finds that disputed domain name <airemirates.org> is indeed confusingly similar to the trademark belonging to the Complainant, since this mark is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent.

Hence, the Panel concludes that the first of the elements in the Policy has been satisfied by the Complainant.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel understands that the mark EMIRATES is associated with the Complainant and its services, since it is not only registered as a mark in its name, but also has been used to identify the services rendered by the Complainant for years.

Further, the Complainant provided sufficient evidence of the fame of the mark EMIRATES and the full range of services rendered under this name to its clients all over the world. Hence, the Panel considers that the Respondent, in all likelihood, could not be unaware of the mark EMIRATES, and its direct relation to the Complainant.

In fact, the Complainant presented evidence that the disputed domain name has been used in a job offer scam, as stated in the report in the Complainant’s Facebook page.

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing of the Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. This has not been rebutted by the Respondent.

Thus, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. For this reason, the Panel believes that the Complainant has satisfied the second element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Given the circumstances of this case, the facts evidence the Respondent’s bad faith in the registration and use of the disputed domain name.

The Respondent intended to give an overall impression that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant – even a photo of an aircraft from the Complainant is used – and the Panel accepts that the disputed domain name may be making use of the Complainant’s renowned trademark for unlawful purposes – concrete evidence of an attempt was presented.

All the points above lead to the conclusion by this Panel that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has also proved the third element of the Policy.

7. Decision

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 name <airemirates.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Date: February 5, 2020

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/