Americanairline.agency

The timeline behind americanairline.agency

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION American Airlines, Inc. v. SHAIL THAKUR, CSC INDIA PVT LTD Case No. D2025-4619 1. The Parties The Complainant is American Airlines, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, United States. The Resp o nd ent is SHAIL THAKUR, CSC INDIA PVT LTD, Ind ia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <americanairline.agency> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 6, 2025. On November 7, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 7, 2025, 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 (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 10, 2025, 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 amended Complaint on November 14, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was December 7, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on December 8, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on December 11, 2025. The Panel f inds 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 an air carrier that also offers travel and transportation services, travel agency services, and travel reservation services. The Complainant owns and operates the domain name <aa.com> which redirects to a website at the domain name <americanairlines.com> which features general information about the Complainant and traveling, as well as allow customers to book travel reservations around the world, view, change and cancel travel reservations, check in f or f lights, and view f light status. In addition to that, the Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations incorporating its AMERICAN AIRLINES trad emark in over 75 jurisdictions (Annex 9 to the Complaint), amongst which the f ollowing registrations in India: - Registration No. 605108 f or the word mark AMERICAN AIRLINES, registered on August 25, 1993, successively renewed; and - Registration No. 1245961 f o r the wo rd mark AMERICAN AIRLINES registered on October 24, 2003, successively renewed. Previous UDRP panels have found that the Complainant “indisputably has rights in the registered trademark AMERICAN, b oth b y virtue of its numerous trademark registrations and as a result of its global goodwill and reputation” (American Airlines, Inc. v. Ramadhir Singh, WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Reema Gupta, Ballu Balwant, Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Lucy Lionel, Lucy99, Red Keep, WIPO Case No . D2021-0294); as well as that the Complainant’s AMERICAN AIRLINES trademark is “very well-known” (American Airlines, Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No . D2021-1093). The disputed domain name was registered on August 2, 2025, and resolves to a landing page simply stating “AMERICAN AIRLINE AGENCY Explore the world with ease” and featuring a chat bot that invites users to enter their name and email address. Active Mail Exchange (“MX”) servers are also associated with the disputed domain name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant asserts to be the largest air carrier in the word, serving over 350 destinations in over f ifty countries, with nearly 7,000 daily f lights; having, during its nearly 100-year history, developed global name-recognition and goodwill which became a household name. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to the Complainant’s AMERICAN and AMERICAN AIRLINES trademarks, as well as to its domain name <americanairlines.com>, given that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s AMERICAN AIRLINES mark in f ull, only removing the “s” from “airlines”, and then adding the generic Top-Level Domain (“g TLD”) “.ag ency.” page 3 As to the lack of rights or legitimate interests, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which was registered by the Respondent without the Complainant’s authorization, license, permission or consent; also the Respondent not being commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor having used or prepared to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, given that, at best, the Respondent’s website is used to confuse website visitors, and at worst, it is used to harvest information, what can hardly be called fair or legitimate use. Lastly, the Complainant contends that, given the disputed domain name has been used to divert Internet traf f ic to a website that purports to be the website for the Complainant, which at best conf uses consumers, and at worst is used to steal information, t his falls squarely within the explicit example of bad faith registration and use f ound in the Policy at paragraph 4(b)(iv), the obvious creation of a f alse association with the Complainant. Additionally, it appears that the Respondent has utilized f alse – or at least incomplete – contact information in the registration of the disputed domain name (notably, the address is missing a street and/or building number, and the provided contact details do not appear to be a precise address or location). Furthermore, the disputed domain name has active MX records which evidences a likelihood of additional bad-faith use of the disputed domain name to engage in f raudulent email or phishing communications B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth the following three requirements which the Complainant must meet in order f or the Panel to order the transf er of the disputed domain name: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (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 f aith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel f inds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. page 4 Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is of ten primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come f orward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. It appears f rom the Complainant’s uncontested submissions that the Respondent has no business or any kind of relationship with the Complainant. Further, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Considering the absence of a response by the Respondent to the Complainant’s contentions putting forward any legitimate non-infringing purpose, the use to which the disputed domain name has been put and the Complainant’s online presence, the Panel f inds, on the balance of probabilities, that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Under these circumstances and absent evidence to the contrary, the Panel f inds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad f aith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. This case presents the following circumstances which indicate under the balance of probabilities bad f aith registration and use of the disputed domain name: a) the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good f aith use by it of the disputed domain name and has not responded to the Complaint; b) the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark; c) the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to take unf air advantage of the likelihood of conf usion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant as to the origin and af f iliation of the web site; d) the conf iguring of active MX email servers associated with the disputed domain name; e) the Respondent’s choice to retain a privacy protection service; and f ) the Respondent’s indication of incomplete and/or false address, evidenced by the inability of the co urier to deliver the Center’s written communication to it. page 5 The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <americanairline.agency> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Wilson Pinheiro Jabur/ Wilson Pinheiro Jabur Sole Panelist Date: December 19, 2025

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.