The American Automobile Association, Inc. v. Demand Domains, Inc.
Claim Number: FA0901001241641
Complainant is The American Automobile Association, Inc. (“Complainant”),
represented by Roger A. Ford, of Covington & Burlington LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <aaattravel.com>, registered with Enom, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Joel M. Grossman as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 7, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 8, 2009.
On January 8, 2009, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <aaattravel.com> domain name is registered with Enom, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, 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 January 14, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of February 3, 2009 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 firstname.lastname@example.org by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 2, 2009.
On February 7, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Joel M. Grossman as Panelist.
A timely Additional Submission from Complainant was received on February 9, 2009.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Complainant first asserts that the domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights. To this end Complainant notes that it has various registered trademarks for the “AAA” mark. Complainant further notes that the mark is wholly incorporated in the domain name with the generic term “travel.” The misspelling of the word travel is simply an example of typosquatting and does not in any manner lessen the confusion. Complainant next argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the name, noting that (1) it is not commonly known by the name; (2) Respondent’s use of the name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, since the name is used to confuse Internet users seeking Complainant’s services and redirecting them to a website offering products which compete with Complainant’s products; (3) the use of the name is not a legitimate noncommercial use since Respondent is attempting to earn pay-per-click fees; and (4) Respondent has tried to shield its name.
Finally, Complainant asserts that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant points out that its mark is very famous and Respondent registered the name with either actual or constructive knowledge of the mark, thus evidencing bad faith. In addition, Complainant asserts that the domain name is being used in bad faith since it is causing confused Internet users attempting to find Complainant’s site to instead be directed to a website that offers competing products.
Respondent does not specifically address the three factors in UDRP cases other than to stress that it did not register the name or use the name in bad faith. Respondent states that it is willing to transfer the name to Complainant.
C. Additional Submissions
In its Additional Submission Complainant points out that given the Respondent’s statement in the Response that it does not object to the transfer of the domain name to Complainant, the Panel may order the domain name transferred without the need for further analysis.
Because the Respondent stipulates to the transfer of the domain name to Complainant, the Panel chooses not to make specific findings in this matter. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd.-Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003).
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.
As noted above, the Panel makes no findings due to Respondent’s stated willingness to transfer the domain name to 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 <aaattravel.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Joel M. Grossman, Panelist
Dated: February 20, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum