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

General Electric Company v. JH Kang

Case No. DCO2020-0023

1. The Parties

The Complainant is General Electric Company, United States of America (“United States”), internally represented.

The Respondent is JH Kang, Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <mygeaviation.co> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 27, 2020. On April 29, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 29, 2020, 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 July 1, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 21, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 22, 2020.

The Center appointed Clive Duncan Thorne as the sole panelist in this matter on July 30, 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 is one of the world-leading manufacturers of aviation jet and turboprop engines.

It is the owner of the trade mark GE registered in respect of, inter alia,all kinds of electric motors, steam and gas turbines and associated parts, electric generators and their parts, aircraft engines, electric alternators and gas compressors. The mark which has been used since 1915 was registered at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on June 8, 1982 under registration No. 1,197,111. A copy of the registration taken from the USPTO website is exhibited as Annex 4 to the Complaint.

The mark GE is also protected for use in connection with remote monitoring of airplane engines, turbines and electrical equipment. The mark was registered at USPTO on January 1, 2008 under registration No. 3,363,509. A copy of the registration taken from the USPTO website is exhibited as Annex 5 to the Complaint.

The Complainant registered the domain names <geaviation.com> on April 14, 1999 and <mygeaviation.com> on May 24, 2013. Copies of the registration records are exhibited as Annex 6 and Annex 7 to the Complaint, respectively.

The Complainant submits that as a result of continuous use of GE AVIATION since at least April 14, 1999 in connection with its goods and services in the aviation industry it has acquired unregistered or common law rights in the mark GE AVIATION.

The Respondent who according to the Registrar database search dated February 19, 2020 exhibited as Annex 1 to the Complaint is an individual, JH Kang, located in the Republic of Korea. The disputed domain name <mygeaviation.co> was registered on December 3, 2019, and resolves to a website displaying pay-per-click links related to the Complainant’s businesses,

In the absence of a Response the Panel finds the above facts adduced by the Complainant to be true and proceeds to determine this Complaint accordingly.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits:

(i) it owns registered trade mark rights in the mark GE and unregistered rights in the mark GE AVIATION and that the disputed domain name <mygeaviation.co> is confusingly similar to those marks which predate the registration of the disputed domain name;

(ii) on the evidence the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 3(b)(ix)(2) of the Rules;

(iii) the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s rights and on the evidence this constitutes registration and use in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

On the evidence as set out in section 4 above the Panel finds that the Complainant owns registered trade mark rights in the mark GE and unregistered or common law trade mark rights in the mark GE AVIATION which predate the date of registration of the disputed domain name.

In accordance with the Complainant’s submissions, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the mark GE together with the descriptive terms “my” and “aviation”. The mark GE is recognizable in the disputed domain name, and the addition of these terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

Further, the disputed domain name also wholly incorporates the unregistered mark GE AVIATION in which the Complainant has acquired rights through long commercial use including use of its domain name <geaviation.com>, since at least April 14, 1999. The Complainant submits that the addition of “my” by way of prefix to the disputed domain name is an insignificant difference that does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Panel agrees with that submission and also takes into account that the Complainant also registered the domain name <mygeaviation.com> on May 24, 2013 for, inter alia, providing access to technical materials.

The Panel therefore finds in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy that the Complainant has prior rights in the marks GE and GE AVIATION and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to those marks.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant submits on the evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

In particular the Complainant relies on the fact that there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is also no evidence that the Respondent has acquired registered or unregistered trade mark or service mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name in the United States or elsewhere in the world.

The Complainant confirms that the Respondent has no affiliation, association, sponsorship, or connection with the Complainant in any way nor has the Respondent been authorized or licensed to use or register the disputed domain name.

There is no evidence of use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent with regard to a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant relies upon Annex 8 to the Complaint which consists of a print out of the Respondent’s website as accessed using the disputed domain name. An Internet user on accessing the website is taken to a series of pages that set out advertisements that may generate income for the Respondent. For example, when the user clicks on to “Mygeaviation Portal” the user is taken to a page that provides hyperlinks that are designated as advertisements including, for example, to “www.shop411.com/Deals” which advertises the Complainant by stating “General Electric GE – Search General Electric GE”. Other examples are set out in the Complaint. Having considered these examples the Panel finds that the use of these advertisement links under the guise of access to the Complainant’s legitimate material does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that the evidence shows that the Respondent has wrongfully incorporated the Complainant’s marks GE and GE AVIATION into the disputed domain name and that this cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial legitimate fair use. It follows that there is no legitimate basis for the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name.

The Panel therefore finds in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark rights.

It relies upon the images of the webpage to which the disputed domain name resolves and exhibited at Annex 8 to the Complaint. It submits that this is evidence that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to deceive the Complainant’s aerospace customers by displaying the Complainant’s marks.

The disputed domain name resolves to the website displaying pay-per-click links which further redirect Internet users to different website pages, and the Complainant’s mark is displayed on each page. The use of the disputed domain name which is similar to the Complainant’s authentic website creates confusion as to the ownership and information for the Complainant’s customers which include airlines and aircraft manufacturers.

The home page of the disputed domain name includes the following options: “Mygeaviation Login”, “Mygeaviation Portal”, “Mygeaviation Customer Portal”, “Pilot Training”, and “Aircraft Maintenance”.

The Complainant’s website “www.mygeaviation.com” provides access to the Complainant’s proprietary technical material relating to engines and airworthiness. The Complainant suggests that this may mean that diverting customers to an illegitimate site may constitute a safety concern.

In summary the Complainant submits that it is an “inevitable conclusion” that there is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately register or use the disputed domain name and that it was therefore registered and is being used in bad faith.

Having considered these submissions and in particular the evidence contained in Annex 8 to the Complaint, taking into account the absence of a Response, the Panel accepts these submissions and finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 <mygeaviation.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

Clive Duncan Thorne
Sole Panelist
Date: August 13, 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/en/web/podcasts/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/