WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

JetBlue Airways Corporation v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Zac Afron, Jet Blue Air Cargo / James Blue, Jet Blue Air Cargo

Case No. D2017-1938

1. The Parties

Complainant is JetBlue Airways Corporation of Long Island City, New York, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, PC, United States.

Respondents are Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States / Zac Afron, Jet Blue Air Cargo of Long Island City, New York, United States / James Blue, Jet Blue Air Cargo of Long Island City, New York, United States.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <jetblueaircargo.com>, <jetblueasia.com> and <jetblueworld.com> are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 4, 2017. On October 5, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On October 6, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on October 9, 2017, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 10, 2017.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 12, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 1, 2017. Respondents did not submit a response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondents of their default on November 2, 2017.

The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on November 9, 2017. 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 operates an airline providing air transportation services in the United States, Mexico, Caribbean, South America and, through partner airlines, other destinations worldwide. Complainant offers its services under the JETBLUE mark and, starting in 2001, has registered numerous trademarks in the United States reflecting the mark JETBLUE (including JETBLUE AIRWAYS (Reg. No. 2,451,955, registered on May 15, 2001) and JETBLUE (Reg. No. 2,449,988, registered on May 8, 2001)). Since 1999, Complainant has owned the domain name <jetblue.com>. Complaint offers a frequent flyer program under the mark TRUEBLUE. In addition to its passenger service, from 2008 through 2015, Complainant also offered an air cargo service under the mark JETBLUE CARGO. Complainant actively markets its services at the regional and national levels.

Respondent James Blue, Jet Blue Air Cargo registered the disputed domain name <jetblueasia.com> on May 14, 2017, and Respondent Zac Afron, Jet Blue Air Cargo registered the disputed domain names <jetblueworld.com>, and <jetblueaircargo.com> on May 14, 2017. Although the names of the registrants differ, the WhoIs registrant contact information for each of the disputed domain names is the same (i.e., the same address, telephone number, and email are provided). Each of the disputed domain names resolves to a website that offers the same content as the other two websites. Currently, each of the three websites displays a banner in shades of blue with the word “JetBlue”. Before the Complaint was filed, each of the websites displayed an image of one of Complainant’s aircraft with a statement reading “WELCOME TO JET BLUE” and included what appeared to be options for placing shipment requests, tracking shipments, and special pricing offers.

The websites also provided a “Know Your Customer” and an “About Us” page. The “About Us” page identified the company as a subsidiary of JetBlue Air Cargo, “a part of the TrueBlue Group”, and as an “end-to-end, comprehensive and outsources Logistics Solutions Provider”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant asks for the consolidation of Respondents and the disputed domain names in one complaint, arguing that the similar naming convention reflected in the disputed domain names, the identical contact information provided to the Registrar, and the identical content on the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve indicate that the disputed domain names are under common control.

Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the JETBLUE mark because they incorporate JETBLUE in its entirety and the added words strengthen the connection to Complainant rather than differentiate the disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark.

According to Complainant, Respondents are not affiliated with or authorized by Complainant to use the JETBLUE mark. Complainant further contends that Respondents cannot demonstrate that they are using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services because Respondents are attempting to pass themselves off as Complainant or make it appear that they are connected or affiliated with Complainant to create a false impression in the minds of customers that Respondents are offering a service legitimately associated with Complainant. For example, Complainant points to the fact that Respondents employ Complainant’s color scheme, prominently features Complainant’s logo, display an image of a plane belonging to Complainant, and misuse TRUEBLUE (Complainant’s frequent flyer program) on their websites.

Finally, Complainant contends that Respondents registered and are using the disputed domain names in bad faith because Respondents have sought to leverage Complainant’s goodwill and popularity for their own gain and undermine Complainant’s own legitimate commercial activity.

B. Respondents

Respondents did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

As an initial matter, in accordance with paragraph 10(e) of the Rules, the Panel grants Complainant’s request to consolidate the disputed domain names into a single complaint as the Panel finds that common control is being exercised over the disputed domain names and, considering the common question of fact and law involved here, that consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties concerned. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2. For example, while the registrant names differ, the WhoIs registry contact information for all three disputed domain names is the same and the website to which each of the disputed domain names resolves is identical in appearance and features substantially the same content.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the JETBLUE mark, in which Complainant has rights as established by its United States trademark registrations. The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant’s mark in its entirety, and the addition of the geographically descriptive term “Asia” to <jetblueasia.com>, “world” to <jetblueworld.com>, and “aircargo” to <jetblueaircargo.com> does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity.

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondents are not Complainant’s affiliates nor is there any evidence to indicate that they are commonly known by the disputed domain names. Further, there is no evidence that Respondents are using or preparing to use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial purposes. On the contrary, Respondents used the disputed domain names for webpages that prominently display Complainant’s logo and photographs of one of Complainant’s own planes. Respondents’ websites purported to offer air cargo service under the JETBLUE banner. Respondents’ attempt to pass themselves off as Complainant is the antithesis of a bona fide use.

The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Respondents registered and are using the disputed domain names in bad faith. The record reflects Respondents’ actual awareness of Complainant’s JETBLUE mark and rights. Respondents also referenced TRUEBLUE (Complainant’s frequent flyer program) in connection with their own services on their websites. Manifestly, Respondent registered the disputed domain names fully aware of and with the intention of exploiting Complainant’s rights.

Respondents also used the disputed domain names in bad faith. The inclusion of the additional descriptive terms “Asia”, “world” and “aircargo” in the disputed domain names aggravates the impression that the disputed domain names are affiliated with Complainant’s services in Asia (<jetblueasia.com>), its global services (<jetblueworld.com>), or its (former) air cargo services (<jetblueaircargo.com>). Respondents designed the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve, purporting to offer air cargo services, to give the false impression that they were Complainant’s. Respondents either intended to use the disputed domain names to commit fraud or to attract customers for their own financial gain. See FIL Limited v. fidelity-investments-ivanov.com, Domain Discreet Privacy Service / Igor Ivanov, WIPO Case No. D2014-0131 (The “only apparent purpose” behind a website appearing to offer financial services by referencing Complainant’s mark was “either to commit fraud upon customers or attract customers on the basis of confusion” and “receive[] or intend[] to receive revenue” based on the confusion.)

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 names <jetblueaircargo.com>, <jetblueasia.com>, <jetblueworld.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist
Date: November 23, 2017