Dialaflightltd.com

The timeline behind dialaflightltd.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 Lotus Travel Group Ltd v. M Saleem Claim Number: FA2206002000637 PARTIES Complainant is Lotus Travel Group Ltd (“Complainant”), represented by Nick Parkinson of Travlaw Legal Services Ltd, International. Respondent is M Saleem (“Respondent”), United Kingdom. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <dialaflightltd.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 16, 2022. The Forum received payment on June 16, 2022. On June 21, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <dialaflightltd.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On June 22, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 12, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@dialaflightltd.com. Also on June 22, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On July 14, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the 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 Complainant operates an online system to assist users with purchasing flight tickets and planning trips. Complainant has rights in the [IMAGE OMITTED] mark through registration of the mark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). Respondent’s <dialaflightltd.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <dialaflightltd.com> domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the [IMAGE OMITTED] mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the domain name. Further, Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses the domain name to engage in a phishing scheme. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith by engaging in a phishing scheme, making users believe they are buying flights from Complainant. Respondent has not otherwise made active use of the domain name. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. 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." 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. 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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has shown that it has rights in the [IMAGE OMITTED] mark through registration of the mark with the EUIPO (e.g., Reg. No. 018095625, registered on December 14, 2019). The Panel finds Respondent’s <dialaflightltd.com> domain name to be virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s [IMAGE OMITTED] mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, only omitting the design element and adding the abbreviation “ltd”, which do nothing to distinguish the domain name from the mark. The inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (gTLD) may be ignored. Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e. (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The <dialaflightltd.com> domain name was registered on May 19, 2022. On May 24, 2022, the domain name was used for an email purporting to be from a Travel Consultant of Complainant, displaying Complainant’s [IMAGE OMITTED] mark and Complainant’s genuine London street address, in order to induce a person to pay for a fabricated airline ticket with Qatar Airways (Complaint Annex 5). These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the <dialaflightltd.com> domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The four illustrative circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) are not exclusive. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainants’ [IMAGE OMITTED] mark when Respondent registered the <dialaflightltd.com> domain name and that Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining money from customers of Complainant. Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <dialaflightltd.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: July 15, 2022 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.