Delta Air Lines, Inc. just lost its bid to grab the new gTLD Delta.tours in a one member panel UDRP of Douglas M. Isenberg.
The domain holder’s case was greatly helped because he registered four other .Tours domains on the same day.
“”Complaint states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered on July 8, 2015, that “[w]ithout [Complainant’s] authorization, Respondent is likely intending to use the domain to divert Internet users seeking [Complainant’s] official website online to Respondent’s website” and that “Respondent likely also intends to garner click-through fees from Internet users who come to Respondent’s site looking for Complainant’s official websites online or to otherwise improperly capitalize on the goodwill of Complainant’s marks.”
The domain holder argued that the Disputed Domain Name was not identical or confusingly similar to the DELTA Trademark because the Disputed Domain Name “in no way references Delta Airlines, Delta Vacations or any of Delta’s subsidiaries”; “[a] simple online search yields numerous companies/entities around the world that utilize the Delta name; including companies that specifically use ‘Delta Tours’ as their incorporated names”; and “[a]t no point during th[e] sunrise phase [for the .tour gTLD] did [Complainant] ever attempt to register the .tour domain name.”
The domain holder stated that the original intent in acquiring the delta.tours domain was to create a landing page for Delta, UT [Utah, USA] and drive traffic to the website where customers can find information on this destination.
“”In fact, when I acquired the delta.tours domain on July 7, 2015, it was purchase[d] along with 4 other .tours domains…. The other .tours domain names were Utah.tours, Idaho,tours, Yellowstone.tours and lgbt.tours.
While the Panel found the Disputed Domain Name was identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights; and that Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the Panel makes no findings with respect to whether the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain.
“Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name “is currently parked.” Complainant argues how it believes Respondent “is likely intending to use” the Disputed Domain Name, and what Respondent “will presumably” do with the Disputed Domain Name.
“Under some circumstances, such passive holding of a domain name can establish a lack of rights or legitimate interests.
By showing additional domain names under the gTLD that it registered on the same date as the Disputed Domain Name and stating that he intends to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with his existing travel site, as a landing page for the city of Delta, Utah (a plausible explanation), the Panel cannot conclude that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.”