Aarcorpus.com

The timeline behind aarcorpus.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 AAR CORP. v. Debra Hoffmann Claim Number: FA2503002145013 PARTIES Complainant is AAR CORP. ("Complainant"), represented by Alexis Degler of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Debra Hoffmann ("Respondent"), Minnesota, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <aarcorpus.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB. 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. James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 13, 2025; Forum received payment on March 13, 2025. On March 14, 2025, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <aarcorpus.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 March 17, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 7, 2025 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@aarcorpus.com. Also on March 17, 2025, 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 April 8, 2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 claims ownership of the AAR mark and certain other marks that incorporate the element AAR, based on its ownership of the portfolio of trademark and service mark registrations described below, and extensive, continuous use of the AAR mark since Complainant was founded in 1955, Complainant asserts that it has been continuously and extensively engaged in the business of providing aviation related goods and services such as components, landing gear, engine solutions, and repair and engineering services to commercial and government customers worldwide. Complainant submits that with its subsidiaries it invests heavily in marketing the AAR branded goods and services including on the major social media platforms. It is contended that a result of Complainant's extensive and continuous investment in the AAR mark, as well as widespread publicity and recognition of the marks and sales of the AAR branded products, Complainant has acquired strong common law trademark rights in the AAR mark, embodying invaluable goodwill. Complainant further argues that the AAR mark is exceedingly strong, based on inherent distinctiveness and commercial strength. Complainant firstly alleges that the disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant's AAR mark, arguing that the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's AAR mark in its entirety. The only difference between the disputed domain name and Complainant's AAR mark is the addition of generic and descriptive elements including the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com> which does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's AAR mark. See API Consolidated LLC dba Speedy Appliance Parts LLC v. Name Redacted, WIPO Case D2024-0669 (finding the disputed domain name identical or confusingly similar when the disputed domain name added the letters "us" to Complainant's trademark). Complainant next alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that: · the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name does not identify Respondent's name, thus keeping Respondent's identity private which is evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, citing Save On Energy, LLC v. Joseph Crono, FA 1496896 (Forum June 17, 2013) (stating "[t]he fact that Respondent registered the domain name using a privacy service to conceal his identity is by itself evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests."); · Respondent is not associated with Complainant and Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent's use of the AAR mark; · a screen capture exhibited in an annex to the Complaint illustrates that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to Complainant's own website, redirecting Internet traffic to Complainant's website at <aarcorp.com>, see CSC Holdings, Inc. v. cabevision-lightpath.com Inc., WIPO Case D2004-1057 (WIPO March 10, 2005) ("The Panel finds that the Respondent was simply trying to avoid the appearance of bad faith when the domain name at issue automatically redirected Complainant's website, "www.lightpath.net".); · Respondent cannot claim to have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as is argued below. See N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc. v. Entredomains, WIPO Case D2000-0387) (WIPO July 5, 2000) ("Bad faith registration and use of domains does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the names"). Complainant next alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith arguing;- When Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2023, Complainant had already been using its AAR mark for more than 20 years and owned at least three United States federal registrations for Complainant's AAR mark as shown in the exhibits annexed to the Complaint. Complainant contends that this evidence strongly indicates that Respondent had constructive, if not actual, notice of Complainant's rights to the AAR mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. Complainant further submits that the disputed domain name is based on Complainant's exact AAR mark and used such as a redirect Internet traffic to Complainant's office website. See Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc. v. Chloe Day, WIPO Case D2023-2453 (WIPO August 14, 2023) ("Here, because Respondent has registered the disputed domain name that is based on Complainant's exact HEAVEN HILL mark and trade name and used such as a redirect to Complainant's official website and for potential email purposes, it is inconceivable that Respondent was not aware of Complainant or its products and services."). Respondent's use of the disputed domain name as a redirect to Complainant's website shows a likelihood that the disputed domain name may be part of a fraudulent or nefarious scheme. See Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Reneg, WIPO Case D2023-4391 (WIPO December 27, 2023) ("[S]uch use is not legitimate and is likely part of a fraudulent or other nefarious scheme."). Complainant adds that it is clear that Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of deceiving consumers as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name and thereby disrupting Complainant's business and for the primary purpose of creating deceptive email addresses using the disputed domain name. Complainant submits that such use constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy 4(b)(iii). See EthnicGrocer.com v. Latin Grocer.com, FA0003000094384 (Forum July 7, 2000) (the minor degree of variation from the Complainant's marks suggests that the Respondent registered the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant's business). Finally Complainant alleges that Respondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the domain name and Complainant's marks in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark and creating consumer confusion constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant's well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is engaged in the business of providing aviation related goods and services using the AAR and AARCORP.COM marks for which it owns a large portfolio of registrations including the following: · United States registered service mark AARCORP.COM, registration number 2,389,476 registered on the Principal Register on September 26, 2000 for services in international classes 35, 37, 39 and 42; · United States registered trademark and service mark AAR, registration number 2,475,025, registered on the Principal Register on August 7, 2001, for goods and services in international classes 6,7,12,19,20,35,37,39 and 42; and · United States registered service mark AAR, registration number 4,157,541 registered on the Principal Register on June 12, 2012 for services in international class 39. The disputed domain name <aarcorpus.com> was registered on October 14, 2024, and resolves to Complainant's own website. There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar's WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this Complaint. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 provided uncontested convincing evidence of its rights in the AAR and AARCORP.COM marks established by its ownership of the portfolio of registered trademarks described above. The disputed domain name <aarcorpus.com> is composed of Complainant's AAR mark in combination with the word "corp", the frequently used acronym "US" designating the United States of America, and the gTLD extension <.com>. Complainant's AAR mark is clearly recognizable as the initial and only distinctive element in the disputed domain name. It is well established that it is sufficient for a complainant to show that the domain name at issue contains the mark relied upon by the complainant in its entirety to establish the first element of the test in Policy. Additionally in this case the disputed domain name adds only the generic letters "us" to Complainants AARCORP.COM mark, inferring a connection with the United States of America. In the circumstances of this case the gTLD extension <.com> within the disputed domain name may be ignored for the purposes of comparing Complainant's mark and the disputed domain name, because it would be considered by Internet users to be a necessary technical element for a domain name registration. This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's AAR and AARCORP.COM marks and Complainant has succeeded in meeting the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above. The fact that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to intercept and redirect Internet traffic to Complainant's own website is particularly compelling evidence. It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant's registered trademarks AAR and AARCORP.COM are each clearly recognizable within the disputed domain names. The earliest registration of the AAR mark relied upon is August 7, 2001, noting that it was preceded by the registration of the AARCORP.COM mark the previous year. The disputed domain name was not registered until October 14, 2024. Taking into account that the elements of the disputed domain name are so similar to the AARCORP.COM mark in particular, on the balance of probabilities, the disputed domain name was chosen and registered with Complainant's mark in mind with the intention of taking predatory advantage of Complainant's rights and goodwill in the AAR and AARCORP.COM marks. This finding is supported by the fact that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to Complainant's own website at <aarcorp.com> Such use of Complainant's marks within the disputed domain name is intended to confuse Internet users by intercepting their traffic and redirecting it to a website that they probably expect to find, which constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy. Complaint argues that such use of the disputed domain name by Respondent allows this Panel to infer that it is being used to perpetrate a phishing scheme. That may well be the case, but as the Panel has found registration and use in bad faith, it is not necessary to consider this argument. This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in 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 <aarcorpus.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. James Bridgeman SC Panelist Dated: April 10, 2025 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.