WIPO Arbitration
and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
International Air Transport Association (IATA) v. Traverse Too
and ASB (Schweiz)
Case No. 2000-0192
1. The Parties
A. The Complainant is the International Air Transport Association (hereafter
IATA or Complainant).
IATA is incorporated under Canada law as a not-for-profit corporation, and
its executive offices are located in Geneva, Switzerland with branch offices
in approximately 60 countries around the world.
B. The Respondents are:
(1) for the domain name "iata.com" "Traverse Too", and
(2) for the domain name "iata.net" ASB (Schweiz).
Both are said by Complainant to be affiliated with or closely linked to Park
Lane Travel Related Service.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
A. The domain names at issue are "iata.com" and "iata.net". IATA already has
the registered domain name "iata.org".
B. The Registrar with which the domain names are registered is Network Solutions,
Inc.
3. Procedural History
A. The complaint was received by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
(hereafter : the "Center") on March 21, 2000, and e-mail acknowledgment of the
receipt of complaint was sent on March 24, 2000. The same day, a request for
registrar verification was issued and answered by Network Solutions, Inc.
B. On March 27, 2000, the complaint was notified to Respondents and the administrative
proceedings commenced.
C. Respondents did not answer, although the Panel is satisfied that the Center
served notice of the complaint per fax, courier and e-mail. Therefore, on April
21, 2000, Respondents were found to be defaulting.
D. On April 21, 2000, the Center appointed as Sole Panelist Professor François
Dessemontet, who had submitted a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of
Impartiality and Independence to the Center.
E. The present decision is rendered within the time limit fixed on May 5, 2000.
4. Factual Background
A. IATA is the principal trade association for the world's international airlines.
While already active before the second world war, it was limited to European
airlines until 1939, when Pan-American joined. Its Articles of Association date
from 1945. It owns a U.S. trade mark N° 73-470 320 registered in 1985, comprising
a design of a globe with two wings, the letters IATA and a rounded delineation,
for the international class 42, as well as similar trade marks in various other
countries. IATA also registered the Internet domain name "iata.org" with Network
Solutions, Inc. and operates a fully developed web site under that domain name.
B. Respondents and Park Lane Travel Related Services are defaulting. The only
information available to the Panel has been supplied by Complainant, according
to which Park Lane offers to sell to travel agents e-mail addresses ending in
"@iata.com" or "@iata.net" in exchange for payment of a monthly fee to Park
Lane. This offer is apparent on the home page http://www.iata.com/terms.htm.
The administrative contact for both domain name is Mr. Andrew M. Reichmuth in
Rotkreuz, Canton of Zug, Switzerland, who may be known also as Mr. Andreas Reichmuth
according to Dun & Bradstreet reports.
C. Respondents are bound by the dispute resolution policies adopted by Network
Solutions, Inc. as they requested or maintained the registration of their domain
names once the registrar adopted the ICANN Policy Rules.
5. Parties Contentions
A. Complainant maintains that the domain names "iata.com" and "iata.net" are
identical or confusingly similar to the IATA trade mark, that neither of the
Respondents has a right or a legitimate interest to use such a domain name,
and that they registered the domain names in bad faith and are using them in
bad faith to exploit commercially the IATA trade mark. Respondents further create
a false impression of an affiliation with IATA by stating that IATA official
travel agent may indicate their registration number with IATA and mentioning
in that connection "our" number.
Complainant requests therefore that the domain names be transferred to it.
B. Respondents are defaulting.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. The IATA trademark and logo is certainly a well-known trade mark within
the meaning of Article 16 of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property (TRIPs). TRIPs extends the Paris Convention provision on the protection
of well-known marks to service marks (such as the complainant's mark) and further
extends the protection of well-known trademarks to cases of dilution by use
for different goods and services where that use is damaging[1].
B. The similarity between the verbal part of the IATA trade marks and the distinctive
part of Respondents' domain names is confusing, the only possible difference
being the top-level domain name. For research engines as well as for individuals
viewing them on the screen, those domain names are identical to the trade mark
and official domain name of Complainant.
C. Respondents do not appear to have any rights or in fact bona fide interests
in the use of a domain name which includes the acronym "iata".
On the contrary, it is a violation of the Swiss Law Against Unfair Competition
of 1986 (Art. 3 [b]) to give false or misleading information on oneself, one's
enterprise, one's trade name, one's wares, works, services, prices, inventories,
sales methods or business.
Thus, to imply a sponsorship or official relation, such e.g. as an authorized
dealership[2], as is implied here with IATA
when no relationship exists, is prohibited by law in the Respondent's country.
Respondents are to be found also lacking in good faith in fact, since IATA is
world-renowned in the field of air travel and its better rights could not possibly
be ignored by Respondents.
D. Respondents appear to have registered the domain names in bad faith and
to use them now in bad faith with the sole purpose of financial gain. They try
to reap profits through the offering to travel agents of subscriptions purporting
to enable them to enjoy the benefit of an "iata.com" or "iata.net" domain name.
In view of the better rights of Complainant, the contentions of Respondents'
web sites in this regard are misleading.
Further, confusion is raised by the use of the domain names "iata.com" and
"iata.net" on the home page. Although the web site mentions that it is "not
the homepage of IATA, the International Air Transport Association", this disclaimer
does not dispel the false impression that there exists a connection with or
a sponsorship by Complainant. Such impression is rooted in the use of the IATA
well known acronym, and in the hyperlink that is proposed to the site "iata.org"
for "IATA training programs, rules and regulations", as well as in the invitation
extended to "Official Travel Agent(s)", which is a well-known category with
air ticketing agencies.
Finally as has been seen, it is also misleading under the Swiss Unfair Competition
Law of 1986 [Art. 3 (b)] to give false information on oneself and one's activities.
This is what Respondents do most generally when creating the false impression
that they are sponsored or endorsed by Complainant, for example when writing
that customers may obtain an "iata.net" e-mail address by using "our
assigned
8-digit IATA-Numbers" (emphasis added), although only IATA is assigning those
numbers.
Therefore, not only the choice of domain names, but the text of the home page
to be reached under those names is proof enough that bad faith presided over
the choice and the use of the IATA element of the domain names, with the intent
to mislead and to divert travel agents and the general public from the truly
authorized IATA site.
7. Decision
The Registrar is hereby required to transfer the domain names "iata.com" and
"iata.net" to the Complainant.
