Westmore · UDRP DecisionAirfrabce.com + 7 more domains
The Panel ordered the transfer of all eight disputed domain names. It found them confusingly similar to the registered and well-known AIR FRANCE mark, found no rights or legitimate interests based on the unrebutted prima facie case and the domains’ pay-per-click redirection use, and found bad-faith registration and use from the coordinated registration of eight misspelled variants and their use to attract users for commercial gain.
The timeline behind airfrabce.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind airfrabce.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
The case illustrates a coordinated typosquatting pattern in which multiple close variants of a well-known mark were registered on the same day and monetized through redirection and pay-per-click programs. The Panel relied principally on the cumulative pattern of variants, the mark’s recognition, the absence of authorization, commercial redirection, and the lack of rebuttal.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Société Air France v. Zhichao Yang Case No. D2014-0309 1. The Parties The Complainant is Société Air France of Roissy, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France. The Respondent is Zhichao Yang of Hefei, Anhui, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <airfrabce.com>, <airfrancr.com>, <airfrancw.com>, <airfranve.com>, <airfranxe.com>, <airfrsnce.com>, <aorfrance.com> and <comairfrance.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 February 27, 2014. On February 27, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 27, 2014, 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 7, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 27, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 28, 2014. The Center appointed Petter Rindforth as the sole panelist in this matter on April 8, 2014. 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 Panel shall issue its Decision based on the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, the Supplemental Rules, and without the benefit of any Response from the Respondent. The case before the Panel was conducted in the English language. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a French airline and freight company, created on October 7, 1933. The Complainant is the owner of a number of trademark registrations for AIR FRANCE, such as: International trademark registration No. 828 334 AIR FRANCE, registered on October 20, 2003 in classes 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45. The disputed domain names <airfrabce.com>, <airfrancr.com>, <airfrancw.com>, <airfranve.com>, <airfranxe.com>, <airfrsnce.com>, <aorfrance.com> and <comairfrance.com> were registered on September 5, 2013. No detailed information is provided about the Respondent’s activities, apart from what is mentioned below by the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant refers to the fact that the Complainant’s trademark AIRFRANCE / AIR FRANCE is registered in many countries around the world, both as international trademark registration and national trademark registrations. Also, since 2004, the Complainant has set up, activated and is operating a website using the domain name <airfrance.com>. For the Complainant’s Chinese customers, there are two special and separate websites in Chinese and English. The Complainant has today 587 airplanes, serving 230 cities in 113 countries, representing 1, 500 flights per day. The Complainant claims that the trademark AIR FRANCE has been recognized as well known in a number of previous UDRP cases. According to the Complainant, all the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks AIR FRANCE and AIRFRANCE. The typos inserted in all disputed domain names are especially constructed for the Chinese public. The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. Finally, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are all registered and used in bad faith. AIR FRANCE is well known in China, the home country of the Respondent. All eight disputed domain names were registered at the same date and time, thereby confirming the Respondent’s determination to register the trademark with knowledge of the notoriety of the trademark. Also, the special misspellings, obviously created to take advantage of Chinese users’ possible misspellings of the trademark AIR FRANCE is pure typosquatting. The Complainant further, to illustrate the Respondent’s typosquatting practice, refers to the fact that the Respondent has already been involved in at least 21 UDRP cases between October 2012 and January 2014, covering 331 domain names. Referring to both the current UDRP case as well as previous UDRP cases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent is using all the disputed domain names in bad faith. The Complainant requests that the Panel issue a decision that the disputed domain names be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant is the owner the trademark AIR FRANCE, registered in a number of countries around the world. The Panel further finds it established that the trademark AIR FRANCE is very well known, also in China, the home country of the Respondent. None of the eight disputed domain names are identical to the Complainant’s trademark. However, seven of them are obvious misspellings of the Complainant’s trademark AIR FRANCE, and one of the disputed domain names is in fact the right spelling of the trademark in direct combination with “.com” as a prefix. Such combinations or misspellings are not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel therefore concludes that <airfrabce.com>, <airfrancr.com>, <airfrancw.com>, <airfranve.com>, <airfranxe.com>, <airfrsnce.com>, <aorfrance.com> and <comairfrance.com> are all confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered and well-known trademark AIR FRANCE. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 2.1. By not submitting a Response, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise, any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Respondent is not an authorized agent or licensee of the Complainant’s services and has no other permission to apply for any domain name incorporating the trademark AIR FRANCE or variations thereof. As shown by the Complainant, the Respondent is using the disputed domain names in a five step redirection system, obviously used to give the Respondent economic benefits of pay-per-click programs in combination with the risk for ordinary users to hit the Respondents disputed domain names by misspelling the Complainant’s trademark. Such use does not establish rights or legitimate interests. See Chanel, Inc. v. Cologne Zone , WIPO Case No. D2000-1809 , “ Bona fide use does not exist when the intended use is a deliberate infringement of another’s rights”; see also CIMB Group Sdn. Bhd., CIMB-Principal Asset Management Berhad v. PrivacyProtect.org / Cyber Domain Services Pvt.Ltd. , WIPO Case No. D2010‑1680(registration of a domain name “for the purpose of misleading or diverting consumers” cannotgive to rise rights or legitimate interests”). The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith As shown by the Complainant, the trademark AIR FRANCE is well known, also in China the home country of the Respondent. Here, the Panel agree with the Complainant that the fact that the Respondent the same day registered no less than eight obvious “misspelled” versions of the Complainant’s trademark AIR FRANCE as domain names are clear indications that the Respondent had knowledge of the trademark and the goal to register the disputed domain names in order to take advantage of Chinese users possibly misspelling the trademark AIR FRANCE. The disputed domain names are in fact used in bad faith, in order to both create an illusion of some kind of commercial relationship with, or endorsement from, the Complainant and earn money from Internet users misspelling through pay-per-click programs. Accordingly, all of the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. 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, <airfrabce.com>, <airfrancr.com>, <airfrancw.com>, <airfranve.com>, <airfranxe.com>, <airfrsnce.com>, <aorfrance.com> and <comairfrance.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Petter Rindforth Sole Panelist Date: April 22, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around airfrabce.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.