Textron Aviation went after the domain AtlanticBeech.com, arguing that Florida-based Atlantic Beechcraft Services was misleading consumers by combining “Atlantic” with “Beech,” a commonly used abbreviation for its BEECHCRAFT aircraft line.
Textron cited decades of trademark use and accused the Respondent of trading on brand recognition, pointing to the site’s references to Bonanza, Baron, Duke, and King Air models without authorization.
But the Respondent countered with a detailed affidavit: the business had operated under the name Atlantic Beechcraft Services since 2002 and registered the domain in 2013. It submitted records showing part purchases from Textron itself, years of direct email contact at the disputed domain, and a long history of maintenance work on Beechcraft planes, arguably not competing with Textron’s manufacturing operations.
The panel acknowledged the strong ties between the domain and the BEECHCRAFT brand but held that under the limited scope of UDRP, such factual disputes over fair use and actual business relationships are better resolved in court.
Interesting note: The Respondent claimed that its domain was hijacked in recent years by someone in Germany.
Final decision: Deny the transfer of AtlanticBeech.com.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.Textron Aviation Inc. v. William Ahern / Atlantic Beechcraft Services
Claim Number: FA2505002157839
PARTIES
Complainant is Textron Aviation Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jeremiah A. Pastrick, Indiana, USA. Respondent is William Ahern / Atlantic Beechcraft Services (“Respondent”), represented by Lori T. Milvain, Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is atlanticbeech.com, registered with Network Solutions, LLC.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Karen J. Bernstein as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 28, 2025; Forum received payment on May 28, 2025.
On May 29, 2025, Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the atlanticbeech.com domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On June 4, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 24, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@atlanticbeech.com. Also on June 4, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 24, 2025.
On June 24, 2025, pursuant to the Parties’ requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Karen J. Bernstein as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent” through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: PREVIOUS UDRP PROCEEEDING
Complainant disclosed in the “OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS” section of the Complaint form, pursuant to ICANN Rule 3(b)(xi), that it filed a prior UDRP proceeding against the atlantibeech.com domain name and cites to a Forum case number, which the Panel reviewed. Complainant’s disclosure, however, appears to have been made in error since the disputed domain name in the case number referred by Complainant is unrelated to this proceeding.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
Complainant, Textron Aviation Inc., is the owner (or licensee as described below) of the BEECHCRAFT marks. Textron Aviation Inc. is the general aviation business unit of the conglomerate Textron and was formed in March 2014 following the acquisition of Beech Holdings which included the Beechcraft and Hawker Aircraft businesses.
Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) is not only one of the world’s best known multi-
industry companies, it is a pioneer of the diversified business model. Founded in 1923, Textron has grown into a network of businesses with total revenues of $13.4 billion (Textron is ranked 219th on the FORTUNE 500 list of largest U.S. companies), with approximately 34,000 employees with facilities and presence in 25 countries, serving a diverse and global customer base. Textron’s companies include some of the most respected global brands in transportation, including Beechcraft, Bell Helicopter, E-Z-GO golf carts and Cessna aircraft. Textron operates a web site at textron.com that features information regarding the company, its products, businesses and subsidiaries.
Beechcraft Aircraft Company was founded in Wichita, KS in 1932 by Walter H. Beech and his wife and business partner, Olive Ann Beech, when Walter left an executive position with Curtiss-Wright Corporation to start designing and manufacturing his own line of airplanes. While many warned that there was no market for a cabin biplane with a luxurious interior in the midst of the Great Depression, the two visionaries forged ahead with their plans to build the “finest aircraft in the world” and changed the course of general aviation. Beechcraft’s line of iconic King Air turboprops and built-for-adventure Baron G58 and Bonanza G36 piston aircraft have shaped the way pilots and businesses fly for more than 50 years. Of particular relevance to this Compliant, the Beechcraft Model 18, or “Twin Beech”, was Continuously produced from 1937 to 1969. Over 9,000 were built, making it one of the world’s most widely used light aircraft. Sold worldwide as a civilian executive, utility, cargo aircraft, and passenger airliner on tailwheels, nosewheels, skis, or floats, it was also used as a military aircraft.
Complainant owns two United States Trademark Registrations, both for BEECHCRAFT, Reg. No. 759556. issued November 5, 1963 in International Class 12 for “airplanes and parts therefore and Reg. No. 7298511, issued February 6, 2024 in International Class 28 for “cale model airplanes; toy aircraft; toy airplanes.”
In addition, Complainant’s affiliated business Textron Innovations is the owner of the BEECHCRAFT design mark, which it licenses exclusively to Complainant (United States Reg. No. 418379) issued December 18, 1945 in International Class 12 for “airplanes of all kinds and structural parts thereof.”
To the best of Complainant’s knowledge, Respondent is a business called Atlantic Beechcraft Services located in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Respondent registered the atlanticbeech.com domain Name (the “Domain Name”) on April 9, 2013, decades after Complainant obtained trademark rights in the BEECHCRAFT name.
Respondent’s website offers “inspection”, “repair” and “parts replacements” and prominently displays the Beechcraft model names “Bonanza”, “Baron”, “Duke” and “King Air” on its website along with the Beechcraft logo. The “atlanticbeech” domain is presumably an amalgamation of the commonly-used “Beech” nickname for Beechcraft aircraft along with a reference to Respondent’s apparent location near the Atlantic Ocean. To the extent that Respondent offers parts, service and repairs for Beechcraft aircraft, it competes directly with Complainant’s authorized service centers and providers. A search tool to locate authorized service providers based on aircraft make/model can be found on Complainant’s website. Complainant currently has four authorized Beechcraft jet service centers and nine authorized Beechcraft piston service providers if Florida alone. Respondent is not an authorized Beechcraft reseller or service provider.
Respondent registered the Domain Name on April 9, 2013, decades after Complainant obtained trademark rights in the BEECHCRAFT name. Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent was well aware of Complainant and its mark at the time it incorporated its business and registered the Domain Name since Complainant has been in business for over 100 years and its mark is well known.
Respondent uses the Domain Name to capitalize on the value and fame of the BEECHCRAFT brand by attracting customers to its website for commercial gain and by using the Domain Name to confuse consumers and “bait and switch” them into not visiting Respondent’s website by creating a false affiliation with Complainant and, therefore, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s BEECHCRAFT trademark.
The Domain Name and the services under the Domain Name compete directly with Complainant and its authorized service providers and are unquestionably intended to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by Complainant and to capitalize on the value of the BEECHCRAFT brand in attracting customers.
Respondent’s President submitted a sworn Affidavit (the “Affidavit”) that swears:
1. Respondent is based in Florida and has been doing business under Atlantic Beechcraft Services, Inc. since 2002 and originally registered the atlanticbeech.com domain name in 2013. To support this statement, Respondent submits its corporate records with the Florida Secretary of State’s Office dated 2002.
2. Respondent performs maintenance on aircraft and does not compete with Complainant who is in the business of manufacturing airplanes and airplane parts.
3. Complainant (and its predecessor companies) has been well aware of the Domain Name and Respondent’s company name and has done business with Respondent’s company, Atlantic Beechcraft Services, Inc. for over 20 years.
4. Complainant has communicated with Respondent at his email address []@atlanticbeech.com for the past 12 years.
5. At around the time that the Complaint was filed in this proceeding, the website located at the Domain Name was taken over by an unknown third party, and the President’s email was taken over by an unknown actor in Germany.
6. Respondent never attempted to create confusion with the Complainant, and is not aware of any actual consumer confusion between Respondent’s business and the Complainant in over 23 years since Respondent was first formed.
7. Respondent’s business does not compete with Complainant, and Respondent frequently purchases genuine Beechcraft airplane parts directly from Beechcraft/Textron Aviation in order to perform maintenance services for its customers.
8. Respondent has never taken any action to suggest a sponsorship by, affiliation with, or endorsement by, Complainant, and that the website located at the Domain Name (before it was taken over by an unknown third party) provided a link to Complainant’s website for the purpose of convenience to its customers interested in purchasing Complainant’s goods.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant claims that the Domain Name is confusingly similar/identical to Complainant’s registered BEECHCRAFT marks. The Domain Name is an amalgamation of the commonly-used “Beech” nickname for Beechcraft aircraft along with a reference to Respondent’s location in Florida near the Atlantic Ocean. Complainant has many authorized service centers and providers but Respondent is not one of them.
Respondent does not dispute that Complainant has trademark rights in the BEECHCRAFT marks, but it argues that the Domain Name is not identical, nor confusingly similar to Complainant’s BEECHCRAFT trademark, because: (1) Respondent chose the Domain Name due to its location on the East Coast of the United States and its proximity to the Atlantic Ocean; (2) that the use of the term, “Atlantic beech” is not a well-known abbreviation of Complainant’s BEECHCRAFT trademark; and (3) that the first portion of Respondent’s Domain, ATLANTIC, is not part of Complainant’s trademark and consumers would not be confused because a comparison of the Domain Name and Complainant’s trademark illustrates on its face that there is no confusing similarity.
The Panel finds that Complainant holds trademark rights in the BEECHCRAFT mark and, despite Respondent’s arguments to the contrary, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BEECHCRAFT trademark since a Beechcraft aircraft is commonly known as a “Beech.” The only difference is that the Domain Name adds the word, “Atlantic” to the common abbreviation for Beechcraft (“Beech”). The .com suffix is disregarded in this analysis. See Elenie Reese v. Eddie Morgan, FA 917029 (Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (the mere addition of a generic Top-Level Domain, such as “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a trademark); WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8 (“where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”).
Accordingly, Complainant has proven the first element of the Policy.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by
Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has
been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of
the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name since Respondent is not commonly known by the mark or the Domain Name, has not been licensed or authorized by Complainant to register or use the BEECHCRAFT mark, and Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services and so Respondent is neither making a legitimate nor non-commercial fair use of the Domain Name.
To evidence Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name, Complainant submitted a screenshot of Respondent’s website located at the Domain Name that was taken prior to when Respondent’s website was taken down by an unknown third party. At the top of Respondent’s website located at the Domain Name, it shows “Atlantic Beechcraft Services” with a picture of clouds beneath the words, “Inspection,” “Repair,” “Replacements,” and “Contact.” Further underneath is the phrase, “Trusted Airplane Service, Repairs, and Part Replacements.” And underneath the phrase, the names, “Bonanza,” “Baron,” “Duke,” and “King Air” are displayed and are all related to Complainant’s models of airplanes. On the next line, there are block designs, each with the words, “Inspection,” “Repair,” and “Replacement.” There is no disclaimer of any kind with regard to Respondent’s lack of a relationship to Complainant.
Complainant avers that Respondent competes directly with Complainant’s authorized service centers and providers, has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and since Respondent is not an authorized service provider of Complaint, Respondent cannot claim fair use under Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001.
Complainant contends that Oki Data only applies when an “authorized” sales or service agent of trademarked goods can use the trademark at issue in its domain name and advocates that Respondent does not meet all of the Oki Data factors, especially because Complainant does not know where Respondent sources its Beechcraft parts and so Respondent is not only selling aircraft parts of unknown progeny and authenticity, but also uses the site to advertise/sell unauthorized (i.e., not genuine) service for Beechcraft aircraft and there is no disclaimer whatsoever on the website located at the Domain Name that indicates Respondent makes zero attempt to distance itself from Complainant, clarify the nature of its relationship with Complainant or publicize that its part are in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Complainant. Complainant also points to Respondent’s use of its BEECHCRAFT logo at the website located at the Domain Name.
Oki Data concerned a very well-known manufacturer of computer accessories. The Respondent was an authorized Oki Data repair center that registered the domain name okidataparts.com to offer its repair services to the public. Oki Data brought the UDRP dispute against its authorized dealer, and Respondent argued that it was a fair use to use the disputed domain name because there was no other way to inform the public that it sells and repairs Oki Data.
The Oki Data panel held that Respondent was using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of its services. In reaching its conclusion in this proceeding, it developed four factors in determining the following:
(i) Respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue;
(ii) Respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods and not to bait and switch internet users to other products sold on the website;
(iii) The site must accurately disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner; and
(iv) The Respondent must not try to corner the market in all domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of reflecting its own mark in a domain name.
Over the years since the Oki Data decision was rendered in 2001, panels have taken a less rigid approach when applying the Oki Data factors. Contrary to Complainant’s assertion that Oki Data applies only when the respondent is an authorized dealer is misplaced. Some Panels have applied Oki Data where the Respondent was not an authorized dealer, for example. See Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Auto Shivuk, D2005-0447 (WIPO October 14, 2014).
Whether Oki Data applies in this matter, it is the Panel’s view that it does not, especially because the screenshot Complainant provided of Respondent’s website located at the Domain Name provides links to other aircraft manufacturers like Raytheon, Prat & Whitney, and Continental Motors, so Respondent is featuring other aircraft manufacturers on the website located at the Domain Name.
Nevertheless, in considering the parties’ evidence, on balance, the Panel finds that the Respondent has rebutted that it is operating a legitimate business since as evidenced by its corporate registration with the Florida Secretary of State and is making offering bona fide services and, therefore, Respondent is commonly known as Atlantic Beechcraft Services and appears to be offering bona fide services.
Whether Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name is a fair one is outside the scope of this proceeding, as further discussed below.
Respondent makes an additional argument that bears a discussion that in over more than a decade that Respondent has used the Domain Name, it should not be punished for its detrimental reliance on Complainant’s delay in bringing these proceedings. According to Respondent, not only has it operated a bona fide business for over 23 years, it also has used the Domain Name for over 12 years without Complainant ever objecting to its use. Respondent further contends that it has never diverted customers or attempted to tarnish Complainant’s trademark at issue; and has used the Domain Name to offer its aircraft maintenance services.
Further, Complainant has not provided an explanation as to why it took over 12 years to bring these proceedings. Respondent cites to several UDRP decisions for the proposition that when as little as 2 years and more than 7 years when a complainant’s delay in bringing a UDRP dispute, panels have denied transfer of disputed domain names and that the Complaint should be dismissed where there was no passive holding of the domain name by the respondent, the complainant was sophisticated and where the complainant failed to police its mark while respondent developed a legitimate business. See, e.g., Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Michael Stadlin / IMS Internet Mgmt. Servs., GMBH, FA 1529658 (Forum Jan. 13, 2014) (denied transfer of Clipsforsale.com for seven years of respondent’s bona fide use).
To evidence Complainant’s 12-year delay in bringing these proceedings, Respondent submitted evidence of what appear to be copies of multiple sales orders and a summary of sales orders from Complainant, Textron Aviation, to Respondent with Complainant in 2015 for aircraft parts sold by Complainant directly to Respondent. There were also emails from Complainant (and Beechcraft Corporation) to Respondent’s email address []@atlanticbeech.com dating from 2018 to the present consisting of sales orders, shipment confirmations, billing and payment confirmations, an invitation from Complainant for Respondent’s “aircraft experts” to attend a live webinar/tech session conducted by Complainant, and customer support issues in connection with parts that Respondent ordered from Complainant for its aircraft maintenance services.
The Panel found these purchase/sales orders to be blurry and difficult to read. Further, under the limited scope of this proceeding, it makes it difficult for this Panel to assess whether the purchase/sales orders are authentic and why Complainant waited over 12 years to bring these proceedings over the Domain Name, which all go to the concept of laches, which is not applicable in UDRP proceedings.
Based on the all of the above, a summary procedure with narrow limitations such as an UDRP does not afford the Panel the ability to assess whether Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is a fair use and whether laches is an appropriate defense.
Given such uncertainty, the Panel cannot come to the decision that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and such matters are better left for a court of law.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has not proven the second element of the Policy.
Registration and Used in Bad Faith
Given the Panel’s conclusion on the second element of the Complaint, it is not necessary to enter findings on the third element.
DECISION
In the proper forum, Complainant may sue Respondent under theories of trademark infringement, dilution, tarnishment, and counterfeiting, among others, and Respondent may have the opportunity to assert defenses of fair use, acquiescence, and laches. These matters, however, extend beyond the purpose of these domain name dispute proceedings.
In addition, it would be fundamentally unfair to reach a conclusion that the Domain Name be transferred away from the Respondent, who has been operating a business for over 23 years and has been using the Domain Name to operate its business for over 12 years without affording the parties the opportunity to exchange documents, cross-examine witnesses, and present robust arguments on substantive issues that may be weighed and resolved in a court of law.
Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be denied.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the atlanticbeech.com domain name remain with Respondent.
Karen J. Bernstein Panelist
Dated: July 8, 2025
