Airbus SAS v Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico

WIPO Case No. D2024-5289

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Airbus SAS v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico

Case No. D2024-5289

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Airbus SAS, France, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <airbusonelogin.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 24, 2024. On December 26, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 26, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, DomainsByProxy.com) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 2, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 7, 2025.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 8, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was January 28, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 29, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Joseph Simone as the sole panelist in this matter on February 4, 2025. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant, Airbus SAS, is an international reference in the aerospace sector. The Complainant has designed, manufactured and delivered industry-leading commercial aircraft, helicopters, military transport, satellites and launch vehicles for over 50 years.

The history of the Complainant dates back to the formation of the Airbus Industrie GIE consortium in 1970. As of September 2021, the Complainant delivered to over 3,000 customers worldwide over 13,500 aircraft and 12,000 helicopters.

The Complainant has over 131,000 employees and a wide global presence, operating in about 180 locations across Europe, the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

The Complainant has an extensive global portfolio of trade mark registrations incorporating the AIRBUS mark, including the following:

- International Trade Mark Registration No. 1112012 in Classes 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21,

24, 25, 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 45, registered on June 24, 2011, designating inter alia
Australia, European Union, United States of America (“USA”), Uzbekistan, Armenia, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, and Switzerland;

- International Trade Mark Registration No. 1247403 in Classes 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17,

18, 19, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 45, registered on June
18, 2014, designating inter alia Australia, European Union, United Kingdom, New Zealand, USA, and
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; and

- International Trade Mark Registration No. 1111794 in Classes 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21,

24, 25, 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 45, registered on June 24, 2011, designating European
Union.

The disputed domain name was registered on May 3, 2024. It directed Internet users to a pay-per-click
(“PPC”) website featuring links to third-party websites. The evidence provided by the Complainant further
indicates that, at the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name had active Mail Exchanger
(“MX”) records, which is indicative of potential use for phishing purposes. At the time of issuance of this

Decision, the disputed domain name resolved to an error page.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AIRBUS trade marks, and that the addition of the generic Top- Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not affect the analysis as to whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks.

page 3

Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the term “onelogin” is the name of one of the Complainant’s cloud- based identity and access management provider and the addition of the term “onelogin” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s AIRBUS mark.

The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the AIRBUS mark, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or has undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Complainant also claims there is no evidence indicating that the Respondent has any connection to the AIRBUS mark in any way, and that there is no plausible good faith reason for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant therefore argues that the registration and any use of the disputed domain name must be in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

To prevail in a UDRP dispute, the first of three elements a complainant must prove is that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. It is widely accepted that this element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Panel acknowledges that the Complainant has established rights in the AIRBUS trade marks in many jurisdictions around the world. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 1.8.

Disregarding the gTLD “.com”, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark a finding of confusing similarity.

AIRBUS in its entirety. Thus, the disputed domain name should be regarded as confusingly similar to the

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in
establishing its rights in the AIRBUS trade mark and in showing that the disputed domain name is

confusingly similar to its mark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The second element that a complainant must prove is that the respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which
the respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant

page 4

evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 2.1.

The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its trade mark and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The composition of the disputed domain name, incorporating the Complainant’s distinctive trade mark with the term “onelogin”, carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. The Respondent did not file a response and has therefore failed to assert factors or put forth evidence to establish that it enjoys rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Meanwhile, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the Respondent, prior to the notice of the dispute, had used or demonstrated its preparation to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

There is also no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

As such, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie showing of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that none of the circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy is applicable in this case.

Accordingly, and based on the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The third and final element that a complainant must prove is that the respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the

purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the
owner of the trade mark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in
excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii)       circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the

owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided
that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii)      circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the

purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) circumstances indicating that the respondent is using the domain name to intentionally attempt to

attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of
confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the
respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

page 5

The examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are not meant to be
exhaustive of all circumstances in which bad faith may be found. Other circumstances may also be relevant
in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith
(WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1).

For reasons discussed under this and the preceding heading, the Panel believes that the Respondent’s conduct in this case constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.

When the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, the AIRBUS trade marks were already widely known and directly associated with the Complainant’s activities. UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising

typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trade mark by an
unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

Given the extensive prior use and fame of the Complainant’s marks, in the Panel’s view, the Respondent should have been aware of the Complainant’s marks when registering the disputed domain name.

The Complainant’s registered trade mark rights in AIRBUS for its products and services predate the registration date of the disputed domain name. A simple online search for the term “airbus” would have revealed that it is an established brand. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2.

The Respondent has not presented any evidence or explanation to justify its choice of the term “airbus” and the term “onelogin” in the disputed domain name. Considering that the term “onelogin” is a service provider to the Complainant, the Panel finds it unlikely that the Respondent’s selection of the terms “airbus” and

“onelogin” is coincidental.

The Panel is therefore of the view that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark rights.

Of particular significance in the present case, it is alleged that the disputed domain name has been used to direct Internet users to a PPC webpage featuring links to third-party website, and that the disputed domain name contained MX records with active email services. MX records are utilised for email delivery, providing

a mechanism for directing incoming emails to a mail server based on the particular domain name. Such activity on its own is not indicative of any rights or legitimate interests and carries a risk that the disputed domain name may be used to impersonate the Complainant.

Moreover, there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Rather, in the circumstances of this case, it appears the composition of the disputed domain name was intended to falsely suggest an affiliation with the Complainant or otherwise mislead Internet users attempting

to determine the authenticity of the disputed domain name.

In light of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that there are no plausible good faith reasons for the Respondent to have registered and used the disputed domain name. The Panel consequently finds that, by registering and using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

page 6

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <airbusonelogin.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Joseph Simone/
Joseph Simone
Sole Panelist
Date: February 18, 2025