Westmore · UDRP DecisionAlitaliaclub.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <alitaliaclub.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the ALITALIA mark because it incorporated the mark in full and added the term “club,” which did not prevent confusing similarity. Respondent failed to rebut Complainant’s prima facie case concerning rights or legitimate interests. Although the domain resolved to an inactive page, the Panel applied the passive holding doctrine and found bad faith based on the mark’s distinctiveness and reputation, Respondent’s lack of explanation, concealment of identity, and the absence of any plausible good-faith use.
The timeline behind alitaliaclub.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 alitaliaclub.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates that inactivity does not preclude a bad-faith finding where a distinctive and reputable mark is reproduced in full, the additional term reinforces an apparent connection with the trademark owner’s industry, the respondent offers no explanation, and no plausible good-faith use is apparent. It also shows that a complainant’s active-exploitation theory may be imperfect when a domain is inactive, while the same record may support relief under the passive holding doctrine.
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 Alitalia - Società Aerea Italiana S.p.A. in Amministrazione Straordinaria v. Sidney K Houston Case No. D2021-2882 1. The Parties Complainant is Alitalia - Società Aerea Italiana S.p.A. in Amministrazione Straordinaria, Italy, represented by Società Italiana Brevetti S.p.A., Italy. Respondent is Sidney K Houston, USA. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <alitaliaclub.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Amazon Registrar, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 1, 2021. On September 2, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 2, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on September 3, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on September 6, 2021. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 8, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 28, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 29, 2021. The Center appointed Clive L. Elliott Q.C., as the sole panelist in this matter on October 8, 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. Factual Background Complainant is the Italian flagship airline that has been operating worldwide under the trade mark ALITALIA since its first flight in 1947. It is based in Rome, where it has its own terminal at Fiumicino Airport. Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations for the trade mark ALITALIA (“Complainant’s Mark”) including the following: Trade Mark Country / Jurisdiction Application No. Registration Date ALITALIA European Union 900829 December 21, 1999 International 378816 May 6, 1971 United States of America 74410760 March 21, 1995 Italy MI32459R January 9, 2018 Complainant is the owner of more than 60 domain names containing Complainant’s Mark, with its main website operating at "www.alitalia.com". According to the publicly available WhoIs, the Domain Name was registered on April 11, 2021. As at the date of the Complaint, it resolved to a page which is inactive. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant states that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark as it incorporates Complainant’s Mark in its entirety, with the addition of the generic term “club”. Further, Complainant contends that the addition of this term is likely to result in consumers being confused into believing that the Domain Name is connected to Complainant, as it gives the impression that it may refer to the loyalty program operated by most airlines. Complainant asserts that there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent has ever used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. Complainant goes on to assert that Respondent has never been in a relationship with Complainant, and Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to register or use Complainant’s Marks. Complainant concludes that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith by exploiting the reputation and distinctiveness of Complainant’s Mark to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Complainant has rights in Complainant’s Mark. It has operated an international airline business since 1947. Based in Rome, Complainant is Italy’s national flagship carrier. It has registered Complainant’s Mark in a number of jurisdictions around the world, including in its home country Italy and is the owner of more than 60 domain names containing Complainant’s Mark. Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark, as it incorporates Complainant’s Mark in its entirety, with the addition of the generic term “club”. The addition of the term “club”, commonly associated with airline frequent flyer or other associated loyalty programs does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.8. The Domain Name is therefore confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark. The first ground of the Policy is established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as it has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, has no relationship with Complainant and is not licensed or otherwise authorized to register or use Complainant’s Mark. Given Respondent has registered a domain name which contains Complainant’s Mark in its entirety, that raises a prima facie case against Respondent under this ground and calls for a response. Respondent has chosen to not respond. Further, Complainant contends that the use of Complainant’s Mark in the Domain Name in conjunction with the term “club” is likely to result in consumers being confused into believing that the Domain Name is connected to Complainant, as it gives the impression that it may refer to the loyalty program operated by most airlines. There is merit in this argument. Even though Respondent is passively holding and not actively using the Domain Name at present, if it did so it would be likely to mislead or deceive consumers into believing they were accessing Complainant or one of its affiliate’s websites, contrary to the fact. Under the circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was not registered and has not been used for any legitimate or fair purpose. Accordingly, the second ground under the Policy is made out. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under this ground, Complainant submits that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith by exploiting the reputation and distinctiveness of Complainant’s Mark to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion. The difficulty with this submission is that Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name and is not actively exploiting any reputation or distinctiveness as such. However, the Domain Name in Respondent’s hands is a blocking registration and it is certainly capable of being misleading or deceptive if the Domain Name is activated so as to resolve to an active website. The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 3.3 sets out four factors that have been taken into account in applying the passive holding doctrine. Applying those factors to the present situation, the Panel finds: (1) Complainant’s Mark has a high degree of distinctiveness and reputation; (2) Respondent has failed to explain why it has chosen the Domain Name; (3) Respondent has concealed its identity; and (4) it is difficult to envisage any plausible good faith use to which the Domain Name could be put. Complainant has therefore established the third ground under 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 Domain Name <alitaliaclub.com> be transferred to Complainant. Clive L. Elliott Sole Panelist Date: October 26, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around alitaliaclub.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.