Airbus SAS v mike wayne

WIPO Case No. D2025-0155

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Airbus SAS v. mike wayne

Case No. D2025-0155

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is mike wayne, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

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

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 15, 2025. On January 15, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 15, 2025, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 16, 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 20, 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 22, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was February 11, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 12, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Peter Burgstaller as the sole panelist in this matter on February 14, 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 is a leading company in the global aerospace sector (Annex 6 to the Complaint). It owns numerous trademark registrations containing the mark AIRBUS around the world, inter alia:

-	German trademark registration (word), Registration No. 302010054700, registered on June 24, 2011;
-	International trademark registrations (word), Registration No. 1112012, registered on June 24, 2011;
and

- Registration No. 1247403, registered on June 18, 2014, designated for many countries around the world (Annex 1 to the Complaint).

Moreover, the Complainant owns several domain names which include the AIRBUS mark, especially its primary domain name <airbus.com>, registered on May 23, 1995 (Annex 4 to the Complaint). The domain name <airbus.com> refers to the Complainant’s main business website (Annex 5 and 6 to the Complaint) which is well known and highly visited (Annex 7 to the Complaint).

The disputed domain name was registered on April 27, 2024 (Annex 2 to the Complaint). At the time of filing the Complaint the disputed domain name resolved to a website where logistics, freight and transportation services were offered especially together with photos of aircrafts from the Complainant but also from competitors and other industrial sectors e.g. ship and road transportation (Annex 3 to the Complaint); the disputed domain name had also an active MX record (Annex 8 to the Complaint).

Finally, the website addressed by the disputed domain name did not provide any information about the relationship, or lack thereof, with the Complainant (Annex 3 to the Complaint).

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 it owns several trademark registrations containing the famous and globally well-known mark AIRBUS. The disputed domain name contains this trademark in its entirety, simply adding the descriptive terms “shipping” and “co” as suffix. Hence, the Complainant notes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AIRBUS mark.

Further, the Complainant asserts, that it has never assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred, or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use the AIRBUS trademark in any manner; moreover, the Respondent is not known under the disputed domain name and therefore does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant also notes that the disputed domain name was registered years after the Complainant has established rights in the mark AIRBUS and especially because of the fame of the mark AIRBUS the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its rights in the mark AIRBUS when registering the disputed domain name.

page 3

Further, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name resolved to a website where it promotes international transportation services, the same services offered by the Complainant, under the Complainant’s AIRBUS name, and unsuspecting users are likely to be fooled into believing such services are affiliated or associated with Complainant.

Finally, there is an active MX record for the disputed domain name which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes. Therefore, the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and

(iii)      the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first 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 trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of the mark
AIRBUS for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

In the present case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the famous and globally well-known mark AIRBUS in which the Complainant has rights since it incorporates the entirety of the mark AIRBUS and only adds the descriptive terms “shipping” and “co” as suffix.

It has long been established under UDRP decisions that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the mere addition of other terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy. This is the case at present. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

Finally, it has also long been held that generic Top-level Domains (“gTLDs”) (in this case “.com”) are
generally disregarded when evaluating the confusing similarity of a disputed domain name. WIPO Overview

3.0, section 1.11.1.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

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.

While 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 often-impossible 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

page 4

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. If the respondent fails to
come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, since it has never assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred, or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use the AIRBUS

mark in any manner.

The Respondent is not known under the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name is not being used for a bona fide offering of goods or services; rather, the disputed domain name refers to a website where it promotes international transportation services, the same services offered by the Complainant under the AIRBUS mark.

For showing rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name (as a reseller, distributor, or service provider), the Respondent must meet under the Oki Data test especially the following requirements:

(i)        the site must accurately and prominently disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark

holder; and

(ii) the respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods or services. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.8; Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903.

The evidence in the Complaint does not reveal any disclaimer that discloses the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainant, and the Respondent has not introduced any evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, the Respondent promoted services together with photos of AIRBUS aircrafts but also from competing aircraft

manufacturers and other industrial sectors.

Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Respondent clearly does not comply with the Oki Data test.

The nature of the disputed domain name, incorporating the entirety of the well-known and famous mark may suggest an affiliation with the Complainant that does not exist. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

The Respondent did not provide any evidence showing its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

As stated in many decisions rendered under the Policy, both conditions, registration and use in bad faith, must be demonstrated; consequently, the Complainant must show that:

- the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent in bad faith; and

- the disputed domain name is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.

(i) The Complainant has established rights in the globally well-known mark AIRBUS years before the
registration of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Complainant is using the mark AIRBUS as its
primary domain name <airbus.com> to address its highly visited business website.

Because of the fame of the AIRBUS mark, it is inconceivable for this Panel that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant’s rights. Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a

page 5

famous and well-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity (as it is in the present case) can by itself create a
presumption of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

Moreover, the term “shipping” and “co” as suffix to the AIRBUS mark in the disputed domain name rather strengthens the impression that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its mark when registering the disputed domain name.

Therefore, the Panel is convinced that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith by the

Respondent.

(ii) The disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the where it promotes international transportation services, the same services offered by the Complainant under its AIRBUS name, and unsuspecting users are likely to be fooled into believing such services are affiliated or associated with the Complainant.

By doing this, the Respondent disrupts the Complainant’s business and intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark which constitutes bad faith use.

Furthermore, this Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith, putting emphasis on the following:

- the Complainant’s trademark AIRBUS is well-known worldwide;

- the Respondent has failed to present any evidence of any good faith use with regard to the disputed

domain name;
- the disputed domain name is inherently misleading, and is thus suited to divert or mislead potential Internet users from the website they are trying to visit (the Complainant’s site) and giving the false
impression that the Respondent may be in some way related with the Complainant, which is not the case;
and

- the disputed domain name has active MX records, as shown in the MX records lookup, which

indicates a possible use for email services.

The evidence and documents produced and put forward by the Complainant together with the fact that the disputed domain name further supports the finding of bad faith.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the

Policy.

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 <airbusshippingco.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Peter Burgstaller/
Peter Burgstaller
Sole Panelist
Date: February 28, 2025