Copaairlines.com

The timeline behind copaairlines.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Compania Panamena de Aviacion, S.A. v. Informatica Internacional a/k/a Informatica Internacional Clayton S.A. Claim Number: FA0505000485805 PARTIES Complainant is Compania Panamena de Aviacion, S.A. (“Complainant”), represented by Gregory Casas of Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP, 600 Travis, Suite 3400, Houston, TX, 77002. Respondent is Informatica Internacional a/k/a Informatica Internacional Clayton S.A. (“Respondent”), Interlink 776, P.O. Box 02-5635, Miami, FL 33102. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <copaairlines.com>, registered with Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com. 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. John J. Upchurch as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 24, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 27, 2005. On May 25, 2005, Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain name <copaairlines.com> is registered with Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com 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 June 2, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 22, 2005 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@copaairlines.com by e-mail. Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On June 28, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <copaairlines.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s COPA AIRLINES mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <copaairlines.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <copaairlines.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Compania Panamena de Aviacion, S.A., is an international airline headquartered in Panama City, Panama. Complainant began its operations in 1947 as a local operation with domestic flights to three cities within Panama. Complainant has grown into an international air carrier servicing thirty-three destinations in twenty countries located throughout North, South and Central America and the Caribbean. Complainant holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the COPA AIRLINES mark (Reg. No. 2,415,339 filed June 21, 1999 and issued December 26, 2000). Complainant has been using its mark in commerce since May 1999 in association with the transportation of passengers by air. Since April 1996, Complainant has operated its main website at the <copaair.com> domain name. Respondent registered the <copaairlines.com> domain name on July 21, 1999. To date, Respondent has yet to make commercial use of the domain name and visitors are informed that the website is “… under construction, so please check back …” DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of 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." In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing,Iinc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent's failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) ("In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint."). Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant’s registration of the COPA AIRLINES mark with the USPTO and its use of the mark in commerce over the last six years establish Complainant’s rights in the mark. See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (“Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive and that a respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption.”); see also Smart Design LLC v. Hughes, D2000-0993 (WIPO Oct. 18, 2000) (holding that ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a complainant to demonstrate “exclusive rights,” but only that the complainant has a bona fide basis for making the Complaint in the first place). In addition, the Panel finds that, once a mark has been registered, the date from which the registrant’s rights in the mark revert back to is the date the application was filed with the USPTO. See FDNY Fire Safety Educ. Fund, Inc. v. Miller, FA 145235 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 26, 2003) (finding that Complainant’s rights in the FDNY mark relate back to the date that its successful trademark registration was filed with the USPTO); see also J. C. Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 340 F.2d 960, 144 U.S.P.Q. 435 (C.C.P.A. 1965) (registration on the Principal Register is prima facie proof of continual use of the mark, dating back to the filing date of the application for registration). Respondent’s <copaairlines.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s COPA AIRLINES mark because the domain name simply deletes the space between the words and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Neither the deletion of spaces nor the addition of a gTLD are sufficient to distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant); see also Sporty’s Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s Mkt., Inc., 202 F.3d 489 (2d Cir. 2000) (“For consumers to buy things or gather information on the Internet, they need an easy way to find particular companies or brand names. The most common method of locating an unknown domain name is simply to type in the company name or logo with the suffix .com.”); see also Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2001) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are impermissible in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has submitted a prima facie case to the Panel, thereby shifting the burden to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to fulfill its burden means that Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances that could demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such rights or legitimate interests exist); see also Woolworths plc. v. Anderson, D2000-1113 (WIPO Oct. 10, 2000) (finding that absent evidence of preparation to use the domain name for a legitimate purpose, the burden of proof lies with the respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests). In the WHOIS contact information, Respondent lists its registrant’s name as “Informatica Internacional” and its administrative, billing and technical contact as “Charles Stratford.” However, since Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint, there has not been any affirmative evidence provided to the Panel showing that Respondent was ever commonly known by the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (finding that “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) “to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail”); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) the respondent is not a licensee of the complainant; (2) the complainant’s prior rights in the mark precede the respondent’s registration; and (3) the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question). Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and has passively held the domain name since the time of registration in 1999. The Panel finds that this failure to use a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where a respondent failed to submit a response to the complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question); see also Melbourne IT Ltd. v. Stafford, D2000-1167 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where there was no proof that a respondent made preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services before notice of the domain name dispute, the domain name did not resolve to a website, and the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name); see also Boeing Co. v. Bressi, D2000-1164 (WIPO Oct. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent advanced no basis on which the panel could conclude that it had rights or legitimate interests in the domain names, and no use of the domain names was established). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent intentionally registered the <copaairlines.com> domain name that contains in its entirety Complainant’s COPA AIRLINES mark. Respondent has failed to market any bona fide goods or services since the disputed domain name was registered. Respondent’s passive holding of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark evidences bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that a respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith); see also Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (“[I]t is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith.”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith). Additionally, Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, a domain name that wholly incorporates Complainant’s mark, suggests that Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights in the COPA AIRLINES mark. Furthermore, Complainant’s registration of its mark with the USPTO confers constructive knowledge on anyone attempting to use the mark. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent chose the <copaairlines.com> domain name based on the distinctive qualities of Complainant’s mark, which evidences bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration); see also Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002) (“Complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the Principal Register of the USPTO, a status that confers constructive notice on those seeking to register or use the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof.”). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied. DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <copaairlines.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. John J. Upchurch, Panelist Dated: July 12, 2005 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.