Bankrupt company sues for domain name AtlasJet.com, rejected

The Turkish company Iflas halinde ATLASJET HAVACILIK ANONIM SIRKETI (hereinafter “Complainant”) registered the domain name AtlasJet.com, which was later auctioned off due to the company's bankruptcy to an American individual, Vahap Dogan (hereinafter “Respondent”), for water jet cutting services. In 2024, the Complainant unsuccessfully attempted to recover the domain name from the current holder through the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Ultimately, the WIPO Panel denied the Complainant's request to transfer the domain name.

Background of the Case

The Complainant was established in Turkey in 2001 as an airline company and later registered the trademark ATLASJET. As a result of the company's bankruptcy in 2020, the domain name AtlasJet.com was sold to the Respondent by auction in 2022 for US$5,650. Respondent subsequently used the domain name in connection with its operation of a water jet cutting machine business.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent should not legally hold AtlasJet.com and requests that the domain name be transferred. However, the WIPO Panel noted that the use of the ATLASJET mark has ceased for many years and that the Respondent operates a business unrelated to the Complainant. The evidence submitted by the Respondent shows that “AtlasJet” is used as a brand name for its products and therefore the domain name was not registered in bad faith.

Details of the Case

1. Background of the proceeding

- In August 2024, the Complainant filed a claim with WIPO alleging that the Respondent was illegally holding the domain name.

- The WIPO Center verified the Complaint and the parties' information and notified the parties. The Respondent filed its Response in mid-October.

-The Panel admitted all documents submitted by the parties, including late filings, to ensure that the parties' submissions were fairly considered.

2. Points of contention of the parties

-Complainant: The Complainant claims that it is eligible for the UDRP and requests a transfer of the domain name.

-Respondent: Respondent states that it acquired the domain name at a reasonable price for its legitimate water jet cutting business and that it is not infringing Complainant's trademark rights.

3. Key Points of the Panel's Decision

-Confusing Similarity: The Panel finds that AtlasJet.com is confusingly similar to the ATLASJET mark, but this is only a preliminary determination and is not sufficient to prove bad faith use.

-Legitimate Interests: The Panel found no need for further confirmation of the Respondent's documentation showing the use of the brand “AtlasJet” in the field of water jet cutting.

-Bad Faith Registration and Use: The Panel considers the timing of the Complainant's cessation of use of the mark and the background of the Respondent's acquisition of the domain name, and concludes that it is not possible to conclude that the domain name was registered in bad faith. The domain name was purchased independently of the Complainant's trademark rights and without bad faith intent.

Conclusion

The WIPO Panel determined that the AtlasJet.com domain name does not need to be transferred to the Complainant and that the legitimate interests of the existing holder are preserved. This decision illustrates that in domain name disputes, the cessation of use of trademark rights and differences in the holder's field of business may have a significant impact on the outcome.