Aircraft manufacturer Textron loses another “Oki Data” case – Domain Name Wire

UDRP provides exceptions for the legitimate use of brand names in domains.

Textron Innovations Inc., a manufacturer of aircraft and aircraft parts, including Cessna and Beechcraft, has filed another cybersquatting case under the Oki data Precedent.

Oki data was a case that established the idea of ​​nominative fair use of domain names, at least as far as the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is concerned. It provides an exception for resellers and service providers who use a trademark in their domain name to offer services related to that trademark.

Earlier this year, Textron was found to have attempted to re-hijack names of an aircraft inspection company that used Beech in its domains, and the company also lost a lawsuit against a pilot who helps transport Cessna aircraft and uses CessnaFerryPilot.com.

The most recent case involved Lycoming engines manufactured by Textron.

Robert Vondersaar registered the domain lycomingoverhaul.com to promote his Lycoming engine maintenance services.

Panelist Jeffrey Neuman addressed the Oki data precedent and concluded that the domain should remain with the mechanic.

He noted:

In addition, the Panel believes that it would be inappropriate to use the UDRP to shut down a successful business that the Respondent has operated for over 13 years. According to paragraph 4.1(c) of the Second ICANN Staff Report on the Implementation Documents for the Unified Dispute Resolution Policy, “The adopted policy leaves the resolution of disputes to the courts, except in cases involving 'abusive registrations' made in bad faith to profit commercially from the trademarks of others (e.g., cybersquatting and cyberpiracy) … and requires registrars not to interfere with a registration until those courts have decided.” The Panel agrees with the view expressed in Walbro Engine Management and believes that the present case represents such a dispute and is more appropriately resolved through the courts.

The Panel does not in any way suggest that the Defendant's website would be successful in a claim for trademark infringement or that the Defendant would not be liable in a court of competent jurisdiction. Rather, there is insufficient evidence for the Panel to conclude that the domain name was registered or used in bad faith.

This is a key part of the case. UDRP was designed to handle clear-cut cases of cybersquatting. It is a blunt force tool; the only remedy is the transfer of a domain name. UDRP is not designed to shut down active websites of legitimate companies. These cases should be handled by competent courts.