Gulfstream.cc

The timeline behind gulfstream.cc

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 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation v. mortiz zimmermann Claim Number: FA2307002052809 PARTIES Complainant is Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Michael R Justus, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is mortiz zimmermann (“Respondent”), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <gulfstream.cc>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 12, 2023; Forum received payment on July 12, 2023. On July 12, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <gulfstream.cc> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 July 13, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 2, 2023 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@gulfstream.cc. Also on July 13, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On August 7, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 states that it is one of the world’s leading aircraft companies. Complainant (itself and through its predecessors) has been in the aircraft business under the GULFSTREAM mark for over 60 years. It has long been one of the leading providers of high-quality aircraft and related products and services to individuals, businesses, government units, and others in the United States and around the world. Complainant and its predecessors have used the well-known GULFSTREAM name and mark since at least 1959 in connection with airplanes and related products and services. Complainant promotes its GULFSTREAM aircraft and related products and services through a variety of marketing and trade channels, including its own website, trade shows and industry events, third-party websites, social media platforms, print advertising, sponsorships, and film and television placements. Complainant owns a large share of the private jet market, and it has been consistently ranked as a leader in brand reputation among business jet manufacturers in third-party rankings. As a result of Complainant’s long and extensive use and registration of the GULFSTREAM mark, and the significant sales, promotion, advertising, third-party acclaim, and commercial success under that mark, the GULFSTREAM mark has achieved such widespread public exposure, acclaim, cachet and recognition that it possesses a high degree of distinctiveness and has been well-known and famous for many years. Complainant has offered and sold software under its famous GULFSTREAM mark since at least as early as 2011. For example, it offers a wide variety of mobile application software under the GULFSTREAM mark, which is available on popular websites such as the Apple App Store. Complainant asserts rights in the GULFSTREAM mark through its registration in the United States in 1981. The mark is famous. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical to its GULFSTREAM mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the “.cc” country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”). According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark, and Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is not used to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent used the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant: the resolving website displayed Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo and purported to offer deals for Complainant’s products. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, by passing off as Complainant and purporting to offer deals for Complainant’s products. Respondent used a privacy service. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its mark before registering the disputed domain name. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant owns the mark GULFSTREAM and uses it to provide aircraft and related products and services. Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 1981. The disputed domain name was registered in 2023. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The resolving website displayed Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo and purported to offer deals for Complainant’s products. 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 The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s GULFSTREAM mark in its entirety, merely adding the “.cc” country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a ccTLD is insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Rockwell Automation v. Zhao Ke, FA 1760051 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) (“The disputed domain name <rockwellautomation.co> corresponds to Complainant's registered ROCKWELL AUTOMATION mark, with the space omitted and the ".co" top-level domain appended thereto. These alterations do not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may demonstrate that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sept. 4, 2018) (concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where “the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and no information in the record shows that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any way.”). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “mortiz zimmermann”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant presents evidence showing that Respondent used the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant: the resolving website displayed Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo and purported to offer deals for Complainant’s products. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name to pass off as a Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (“In effect, Respondent attempted to pass itself off as Complainant online. Such blatant unauthorized use of Complainant’s mark is evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”); see also Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Hotel Partners a/k/a eGO Inc., FA 190506 (Forum Oct. 6, 2003) (“Respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as Complainant at the disputed domain name, without authorization or license by Complainant . . . is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”); see also Bloomberg L.P v. Bloomberg Realty (India) Private Limited, FA 1439263 (Forum May 30, 2012) (“Use of a domain name which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, Respondent used the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant to offer competing services. Under the Policy, using a disputed domain name to take advantage of the confusing similarity between the domain name and the mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also Carey Int’l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) (“[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith”); see also Fossil, Inc. v. www.fossil-watch.org c/o Host Master, FA 335513 (Forum Nov. 9, 2004) (“Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under the Policy. Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website displayed Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <gulfstream.cc> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: August 7, 2023 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.