Decisión del Panel Administrativo nº D2015-1051 of WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, August 21, 2015 (case Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. amit goel, dream travel inc / Domains By Proxy, LLC / Raj Arora)

• Resolution Date: August 21, 2015
• Issuing Organization: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
• Decision: Transfer
• Dominio: Generic Domains

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. amit goel, dream travel inc / Domains By Proxy, LLC / Raj Arora

Case No. D2015-1051

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Delta Air Lines, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America ("USA"), represented by Wellborn, Wallace & Woodard, LLC, USA.

The Respondents are amit goel, dream travel inc. of Uttar Pradesh, India; Raj Arora of Delhi, India; and Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names [deltaair1ine.com] (the "first Domain Name") and [deltaair1ines.com] (the "second Domain Name") are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on June 18, 2015, naming Domains By Proxy, LLC, as the Respondent for the first Domain Name and Raj Arora as the Respondent for the second Domain Name.

The Center transmitted its request for registrar verification to the Registrar on June 18, 2015. The Registrar replied on June 19, 2015, confirming that it was the Registrar of both Domain Names and that Raj Arora was the registrant of the second Domain Name, but identifying dream travel inc. as the registrant of the first Domain Name. The Registrar provided the full contact details held on its WhoIs database in respect of the Domain Names. In the case of the first Domain Name these identified the registrant name as amit goel and the registrant organization as dream travel inc.

The Registrar also confirmed that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP") applies to the Domain Names, that they would remain locked during this proceeding subject to expiry, and that the registration agreement is in English. The Registrar stated that the first Domain Name has been registered to the current registrant since at least June 19, 2015, and expires on March 10, 2016; and that the second Domain Name has been registered to the current registrant since at least April 13, 2015 and expires on April 13, 2016.

The Center invited the Complainant by email of June 24, 2015, to amend the Complaint in the light of the information provided by the Registrar identifying the registrant of the first Domain Name. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 1, 2015.

The Center verified that the Amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the UDRP, 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 paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a) of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 3, 2015. The courier reported successful delivery of the notification to all Respondents. In accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules, the due date for Response was July 23, 2015. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center...