Aida Cruises whose website is Aida.de just lost a UDRP on the domain name Aida.me.
Although the complainant had a registered trademark on the term Aida the domain holder registered the domain name for his daughter which won him the UDRP:
“The Respondent submits that his daughter, born December 15, 2010, is named “Aida”. The Respondent has three other children named Zakaria, Danyaal and Mikaeel. The Respondent has registered domain names for each of his children for their personal use. The Respondent submits that the domain name reverts to a website that featured three graphic circles in primary colours chosen because they are vivid colours that children recognize.
The Respondent submits that the disputed domain name cannot be confusingly similar because the word “Aida” is a common name, and that he has a right and legitimate interest in the disputed domain name because his daughter is named “Aida”. Furthermore, the disputed domain name was registered and is intended to be used by his daughter for her own personal use; therefore the disputed domain name was not registered or used in bad faith.
Based on the evidentiary record submitted in this proceeding, the Panel is prepared to find that the Complainant has a reputation in the trademark AIDA in association with the services covered in its trademark registrations. However, the Panel is also prepared to find that the word “Aida” is a common personal name.
The Panel accepts the Respondent’s submission that he has a daughter named “Aida” and that she was born on December 15, 2010, as evidenced by the copy of the Birth Certificate (Annex 9 to the Response).
The Panel also notes that the Respondent has registered domain names for each of children, namely ; ; and , which were registered respectively on September 9, 2001; September 30, 2003; February 22, 2006.
The sequence and dates of registration for each of these domain names is consistent with the pattern of an individual registering domain names for each of his children.
No evidence has been produced by the Complainant to suggest that there are any hallmarks or indicia of an abusive registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has a right and legitimate interest in registering the disputed domain name , in recognition of his daughter’s personal name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has not satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.…
