Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0418.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:41:40+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is Singapore Airlines Limited of Singapore, represented by Sheppard,�Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Washington D.C., United States of America (“Singapore Airlines” or “Complainant”).
The Respondent is domain admin/DNVestment of Fremont, California, United States of America (“DNV” or “Respondent”).
The disputed domain name <krisflyernewsonline.com> is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-Channel.com.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the�“Center”) on June�8,�2004. On June�9,�2004, the Center transmitted by email to OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-Channel.com a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On June�10,�2004, OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-Channel.com transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant, and providing the details for the administrative, billing, and technical contacts. Since the Registrar had not received a copy of the Complaint, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on June�10,�2004. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June�11,�2004. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July�1,�2004. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July�2,�2004.
It is to be noted that the Complaint has been notified to the Respondent in electronic form by e-mail to two e-mail addresses, and by postal mail according to paragraph 2(a) of the Rules. None of the e-mails reached the Respondent. Further, the postal mail was returned with the mention “wrong address”. Despite a minor typographical error (DNY instead of DNV), which does not alter the notification requirement, the Panel considers that the WIPO Center has complied with the requirements of Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules, i.e. “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent”. Incidentally, it must be noted that subsequent e-mail notifications have been sent to the Respondent, in particular the Notification of Respondent Default, which indicates that : “The Administrative Panel will decide in its sole discretion whether to consider your Response (if submitted later) in deciding the case”. Anyhow, the Respondent did not make any response nor communicate any messages at any time.
The Center appointed Christian Pirker as the sole panelist in this matter on July�9,�2004. 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.
After reading the Complaint, the Panel noted that the documents in relation to the previous ownership of the disputed domain name were not attached to the Complaint nor evidence about the content of the current website and that there was no Mutual Jurisdiction in the proceeding as required by paragraph 3(xiii) of the Rules. Thus, the Panel decided to issue an Administrative Panel Procedural Order requiring the Complainant to produce this evidence and amendment. The order, issued on July�19,�2004, fixed a 7-day deadline for the Complainant to comply with the order. The Panel further extended the deadline to forward its decision until August�2,�2004. On July�23,�2004, the Complainant submitted the requested evidence and amendment.
The Complaint is based on the Complainant’s alleged ownership of rights in the mark KRISFLYER. The Complainant contends that this mark is either identical or confusingly similar to the domain name. The Complainant, the well-known international air carrier Singapore Airlines, uses the KRYSFLYER mark for frequent flyer/loyalty marketing program and related goods and services. The Complainant alleges that it began using the KRISFLYER mark in 1999.
The Complainant owns registrations in numerous jurisdictions for the mark KRISFLYER. The Complainant has provided the Panel with registration certificates for a number of these marks, including U.S.�Trademark Registration No. 2,347,164 (class 39).
The Complainant owned the disputed domain name until December 2003. The domain name was used for its newsletters in relation to the frequent flyer/loyalty marketing program named Krisflyer. The Complainant did not renew the domain name. On March�9,�2004, the Respondent registered the domain name. Although the disputed domain name “krisflyernewsonline.com” does not currently revert to an active website, Complainant alleges that it was used for a website containing pornographic material in the period from March�12,�2004, to the filing of the Complaint.
The Complainant alleges that it owns numerous registrations of the KRISFLYER mark.
The Complainant also alleges that it registered and used the disputed domain name <krisflyernewsonline.com> from January 2002 to December 2003, for a website dedicated to the airline’s online Krisflyer Newsletter. As per December 2003, this service has migrated to the main Singapore Airlines website, and the disputed domain name has not been renewed.
The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on or about March�9,�2004, and started using it for a pornographic website.
Finally, the Complainant alleges that it has received numerous complaints from Internet users regarding the fact that a website containing the KRISFLYER mark <krisflyernewsonline.com> had a pornographic content. The Complainant specifies that it has no connection whatsoever with the Respondent.
Accordingly, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to the trademarks registered and used by it, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, and that the Respondent has registered this domain name in bad faith.
It is further noted that the Respondent did not give any response nor communicated any message at any time during the present proceedings.
The “Krisflyer” name in its entirety is included in the disputed domain name. Moreover, the adjunction of the term “newsonline” to the name “Krisflyer” in the domain name does not diminish the confusing similarity between the domain name and the KRISFLYER Trademark, since the distinctive part of the disputed domain name is the term Krisflyer and the term “newsonline” is a descriptive term. Domain names that combine a descriptive term with another’s trademark have been held to be confusingly similar to the trademark. See, e.g., AT&T Corp. v. WorldclassMedia.com, WIPO Case�No.�D2000-0553; Scholastic Inc. v. 366 Publications, WIPO Case No. D2000-1627.
It further appears to the Panel that adding the term “newsonline” to the mark increases the likelihood of confusion.
In view of the above, the Panel holds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KRISFLYER trademark.
It is for the Complainant to demonstrate that this condition is met prima facie. Provided that the Complainant is successful in establishing such prima facie condition, it is for the Respondent to answer thereon. Accordingly, the main burden of proof is on the Respondent.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no connection whatsoever with it and that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name.
As stated above, the Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint. The Panel will therefore draw such inferences as it considers appropriate under the circumstances (paragraphs 5(e) and 14(a) of the Rules).
Since the Respondent has not challenged the Complainant’s contention, the Panel finds it credible.
Moreover, there is no evidence in the file that the Respondent has any right or legitimate interest in the domain name.
The third element to be established by the Complainant is that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(b) states the following four (non-exclusive) circumstances which, if found to be present, are deemed to provide evidence of bad faith in registering and using the Domain Name.
The Complainant’s trademark is distinctive and the domain name includes the trademark. Moreover, the Complainant was using this domain name until December�2003. In the light of these circumstances, the Panel is convinced that the choice of the domain name by the Respondent could hardly be a coincidence and therefore that the domain name has been registered in bad faith.
The domain name must not only be registered in bad faith, but it must also be used in bad faith (e.g. World wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Michael Bosman WIPO Case No. D1999-0001).
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent uses the domain name for a pornographic website. Even if the file does not contain a screen capture and that the domain name is currently inactive, the Panel considers that the evidence submitted by Complainant following the Panel’s Procedural Order attests the former pornographic use of the domain name.
In numerous cases, it has been held that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, “the diversion of the domain names to a pornographic site is itself certainly consistent with the finding that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith”. Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Seweryn Nowak, WIPO Case No. D2003-0022; Caledonia Motor Group Limited v. Amizon, WIPO Case No. D2001-0860.
Thus, the Panel is convinced that the domain name merely serves the purpose only to intentionally mislead and divert customers seeking information related to the Krisflyer program on the Respondent’s site. As a result, the Panel finds that bad faith registration as required by paragraph 4(a)(iii) within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) is established (see also Benetton Group SpA v. Domain for Sale, WIPO Case No. D2001-1498 - <benettonsportsystem.com>; Microsoft Corporation v. Phayze Inc., WIPO Case No. D2003-0750 - <hackingxbox.com>).
This being said, even if there had been no use, the inactivity of the Respondent’s domain name at issue would not necessarily exclude this element. A passive holding of a domain name may satisfy the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) that the domain name is being used in bad faith, when considered in conjunction with other circumstances (Advanced Comfort Inc. v. Frank Grillo, WIPO Case No. D2002-0762 - <abeds.com>; Prada S.A. v. Mark O‘Flynn, WIPO Case No. D2001-0368 - <pradaboutique.com>; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 - <telstra.org>).
- The disputed domain name led customers or potential customer of the Krisflyer program to believe that they will find, on the Respondent’s Internet website, updated information on Complainant’s Krisflyer program.
- The Respondent’s former pornographic use of the domain name had no relation to the Complainant’s activity except for misleading and diverting potential customers of the Complainant to the Respondent’s former website.
- The Respondent’s former pornographic use of the domain name tarnishes the Complainant’s trademarks and harms its reputation.
- The Respondent has not provided any evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the domain.
Consequently, the Panel holds that both elements of paragraph�4(a)(iii) of the Policy have been met. The Panel thus concludes that the Complainant has established that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.