[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service >> Societe Air France v Dorel [2009] DRS 6641 (6 March 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/DRS/2009/6641.html Cite as: [2009] DRS 6641

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 
DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICE DRS 06641
Decision of Independent Expert
Societe Air France and Papa Dorel
1. The Parties:

Complainant: Societe Air France

Country: France

Respondent: Papa Dorel

Country: Bulgaria

2. The Domain Name(s):

air-france-flights.co.uk

3. Procedural History:

The Complaint was lodged with Nominet in full on 17 January 2009. No Response was filed. On 23 January 2009, the Complainant paid Nominet the appropriate fee for a decision of an Expert pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service Policy ("the Policy").

Cerryg Jones, the undersigned, ("the Expert") confirmed to Nominet that he knew of no reason why he could not properly accept the invitation to act as expert in this case and further confirmed that he knew of no matters which ought to be drawn to the attention of the parties, which might appear to call into question his independence and/or impartiality.

There are no other outstanding procedural issues that arise.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the well-known French airline. It is the registered proprietor of various trade marks in the UK for airline services consisting of the sign AIR FRANCE. It also is the owner of a CTM for AIR FRANCE in a variety of classes.

The Complainant is the registrant of a number of top level and country code specific domain names, which consist of the mark AIR FRANCE, including airfrance.co.uk; airfrance.fr; airfrance.de; airfrance.ir; airfrance.es; airfrance.pt; and airfrance.it

As no submissions have been filed on behalf of the Respondent, not very much can be said about him other than what is apparent from a whois query (which forms part of the evidence) and the use made of the Domain Name. It appears from these sources that the Respondent is a UK individual; that he provided Nominet with an address in Bulgaria for the purposes of the registration of the Domain Name; that he registered the Domain Name on 6 December 2008; and that he has uses the Domain Name to point to a parking webpage on which appear hyperlinks exclusively related to the field of tourism and online travel booking, which redirect internet traffic to competing third-party websites.

5. Parties' Contentions

The Complainant's submissions are as follows:

There is no legitimate reason for the Respondent to have registered and used the Domain Name.

The Complainant's trade mark AIR FRANCE is well known (in the sense of article 6 bis of the Paris Union Convention). In support of this, the Complainant has identified several Administrative Panel decisions, which have recognized its well-known character.

The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark AIR FRANCE because the trade mark AIR FRANCE is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name; the use of a hyphen is of no relevance; the combination of the trade mark AIR FRANCE with the word "flights" in the Domain Name does not eliminate the risk of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark AIR FRANCE, as this is the only distinctive element of the Domain Name.

The Respondent had no right to either register or use a domain name which reproduces the trade mark AIR FRANCE as the Respondent is not commonly known under this mark and the Complainant is not in any business relationship with the Respondent.

No licence or authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use, or apply for registration, of the Domain Name.

The Respondent has registered the Domain Name because he knew of the well-known character of the trade mark AIR FRANCE.

The Respondent uses the Domain Name to divert internet users to a parking webpage on which several hyperlinks are displayed consisting exclusively of results in the field of tourism and travel. By clicking on these hyperlinks, users are directed to competing third-party commercial websites. These hyperlinks generate revenue for the benefit of the Respondent through a "pay per click" domain parking solution.

That the Respondent is intending to realize material benefits by diluting the fame and renown of the Complainant's trade mark.

That even if the activity of the domain parking is not controlled by the Respondent, he nonetheless has a responsibility for its content.

The Respondent is not making any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name because such use could mislead consumers by offering competing services, without having acquired any licence or permission from the Complainant.

The Respondent did not respond.

6. Discussions and Findings

The first question that needs to be decided is whether the Complainant has "rights," (as defined by the DRS Policy), in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Name. The evidence clearly substantiates that the Complainant has such rights. The mere addition of the descriptor "flights" to what is a well-know trade mark, does not serve, in this case, to distinguish the Domain Name from the trade mark relied upon. The same applies to the use of hyphens within the Domain Name.

The Complainant also has to show that the Domain Name is an abusive registration. Paragraph 1 of the Policy defines this as a domain name which either:

i. was registered or otherwise acquired in a manner, which at the time when the registration or acquisition took place, took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant's Rights; or

ii. has been used in a manner, which took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant's Rights."

A non-exhaustive list of factors, which may be evidence of an abusive registration, are set out in paragraph 3a of the Policy. However, these are only examples of conduct, which may be evidence that a domain name is an abusive registration.

In the absence of a response, this is a very straightforward case, as I have formed the clear view that the Respondent has used the Domain Name in a manner which took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant's rights for the reasons identified in the Complainant's submissions. In particular:

The Domain Name is not one which would have been chosen by the Respondent without prior knowledge of the Complainant's rights in the name.

There is no evidence that the Domain Name is being used solely as a means of identifying honestly the Complainant's services. To the contrary, the Domain Name is being used to operate a click-through website which provides links to third party websites unrelated to the Complainant, from which competing services can be purchased online, thus diverting business from the Complainant. In substance, the Respondent is using the fame of the Complainant's trade mark to attract Internet users to the sponsored websites for the Respondent's own commercial gain, rather than as a means of fairly identifying the Complainant's services. The Respondent is unfairly disrupting the business of the Complainant.

7. Decision

I am therefore satisfied that the Complainant has Rights in a name or mark that is identical or similar to the Domain Name and that the Domain Name in the hands of the Respondent is an abusive registration.

In the light of the foregoing findings, I direct that the Domain Name should be transferred.

Signed: Cerryg Jones Dated: 6 March 2009