Continentalairlines.com

The timeline behind continentalairlines.com

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.

DECISION Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Mindal Park Claim Number: FA0403000250002 PARTIES Complainant is Continental Airlines, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by W. Scott Brown, of Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P., 2300 First City Tower, 1001 Fannin, Houston, TX 77002-6760. Respondent is Mindal Park (“Respondent”), SungJi A.P.T. 2Dong401 Ho.206, WonJong 2 Doung Ojung – Gu Buchun, City Kyenggi, Korea. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <continentalairlines.com>, registered with Netpia.com, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hong Oo Baak as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on March 26, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 3, 2004. The Complaint was submitted in both Korean and English. On May 4, 2004, Netpia.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <continentalairlines.com> is registered with Netpia.com, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Netpia.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Netpia.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On May 4, 2004, a Korean language Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 24, 2004 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@continentalairlines.com by e-mail. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 24, 2004. An Additional Submission by Complainant was received on June 1, 2004, which failed to comply with Supplemental Rule 7. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Korean language Complaint and Commencement Notification and, being that the Complaint and Response were submitted in both English and Korean, the Panel determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English. On June 4, 2004, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hong Oo Baak as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant First, Comlainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name <continentalairlines.com> (hereinafter, “Disputed Domain Name”) is identical to and confusingly similar to the marks it owns, i.e., CONTINENTAL AIRLINES (hereinafter, “Mark”), and its family of related marks (hereinafter, “Marks”). Complainant points out that the Disputed Domain Name <continentalairlines.com> creates a likelihood of confusion with Continental Airlines’ marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of another’s website or of any goods or services promoted on the website and is certain to misleadingly divert web users trying to locate the legitimate CONTINENTAL AIRLINES website. Second, Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name <continentalairlines.com> is just to divert customers who access the Disputed Domain Name to <flightreservationsonline.com>, which presents an air travel reservation system operated by FlightReservationsOnline.com, and thus, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Thirdly, Complainant asserts that Respondent was undoubtedly aware of Continental Airlines’ famous name and mark CONTINENTAL AIRLINES when it registered the Disputed Domain name and that Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name to divert web users indicates that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with bad faith as defined by the Policy, to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or on-line location. B. Respondent Respondent contends that the mark CONTINENTAL AIRLINES owned by Complainant is generic since it is a combination of the generic terms “continental” and “airlines,” and thus is not entitled to trademark protection, and that even if it is entitled to protection the protection must be very limited. Respondent asserts that it uses the Disputed Domain name to forward Internet users who access the site to <flightreservationsonline.com>, by which Respondent operates a travel ticket reservation business. Respondent also contends that the business Respondent does is not airline transportation but travel ticket reservation or as a travel agent and thus does not fall within the categories of the designated services of Complainant’s Marks. Respondent also contends that it did not register the Disputed Domain name in bad faith. FINDINGS 1. Complainant is the fifth largest U.S. airline. 2. Complainant is the owner of the name and mark CONTINENTAL AIRLINES and a family of related marks which are registered in the United States and other countries. Complainant obtained registration with the USPTO for the mark CONTINENTAL AIRLINES on October 26, 1999 as Registration Number 2,288,901 (“Mark”). Complainant uses the CONTINENTAL AIRLINES mark in connection with all of its businesses throughout the world. In April, 2003, Respondent obtained the registration of the Disputed Domain Name <continentalairlines.com>. Respondent was aware of Continental Airlines’ famous name and mark CONTINENTAL AIRLINES when it registered the Disputed Domain name. Respondent has been intentionally forwarding Internet users who access the site of the Disputed Domain Name to <flightreservationsonline.com>, by which Respondent pursues the business of travel ticket reservation. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Mark For a trademark to be valid, a trademark must be distinctive, that is, capable of identifying one firm’s goods or services and distinguishing them from those of another. The Mark consists of two parts, “continental” and “airlines.” The word “continental” is generic because it describes an area that airline services cover. The word “airlines” is also descriptive because it describes the type of services. However, it appears that Complainant has proved that the Mark has been adopted and used in commerce by Continental Airlines in connection with airline transportation services and thus has achieved secondary meaning. Thus, the Mark is entitled to protection. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The Disputed Domain Name is identical to the mark CONTINENTAL AIRLINES. The addition of a top level domain designation (such as ".com") does not defeat a claim that a domain name is identical to a complainant's mark. See, e.g., Blue Sky Software Corp. v. Digital Sierra Inc., D2000-0165 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name <continentalairlines.com> is just to divert customers who access the Disputed Domain Name to <flightreservationsonline.com>, which presents an air travel reservation system operated by FlightReservationsOnline.com, and thus, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent’s intentional diverting of users to a competitor’s site does not constitute a bona fide offering of services and it is interpreted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, for the purpose of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Ticketmaster Corp. v. DiscoverNet, Inc., D2001-0252 (WIPO Apr. 9, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent generated commercial gain by intentionally and misleadingly diverting users away from Complainant's site to a competing website). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith It is found that Respondent was aware of Continental Airlines’ famous name and mark CONTINENTAL AIRLINES when it registered the Disputed Domain name, and the fact that Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to divert web users indicates that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or on-line location. Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) provides that, for the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), if a person who registered a domain name has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his/her website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his/her website or location or of a product or service on his/her website or location, it shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied. DECISION For the reasons set forth above, Complainant, having satisfied all three elements stated in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, has established its prima facie case sufficient to warrant transfer of the contested domain name. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the requested relief should be granted. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <continentalairlines.com> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. Hong Oo Baak, Panelist Dated: June 18, 2004 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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