Etihad Airways has been found to have attempted reverse hijacking in a cybersquatting dispute over the domain name etihad.ai. The airline, based in the United Arab Emirates, filed a complaint against a U.S.-based individual who had registered the domain. The dispute, ruled on by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), centers around the use of the term etihad, which means “union” or “unity” in Arabic.
The airline argued that the domain name was an infringement on its trademark, which is associated with the airline’s brand. However, the domain owner, who is a native Arabic speaker from Djibouti, defended his registration, pointing out that etihad is a common Arabic word used by many organizations and businesses beyond the airline, such as Etihad Medical Services and Etihad Technology.
WIPO Panel’s Ruling
The WIPO panel dismissed Etihad Airways’ claim, finding no evidence of bad faith in the domain registration. The panel stated that the domain was not related to the airline’s trademark, especially since it did not include terms like “airways” or any other identifier specific to Etihad Airways’ operations. Additionally, the domain’s use of the “.ai” country code top-level domain (TLD) had no direct connection to Etihad Airways.
Moreover, the panel found that Etihad Airways had failed to acknowledge that etihad is a common Arabic word, which was a key point in the dispute. The airline was also found to have brought the complaint in bad faith, as it did not consider the term’s broader use beyond their brand.
The Aftermath
The decision marks a significant loss for Etihad Airways in the ongoing battle over domain ownership, especially given the airline’s attempt to claim exclusive rights over a common word. The case was also seen as an example of reverse domain name hijacking, where a trademark holder attempts to unjustly seize a domain name.
Clyde & Co represented Etihad Airways in the case, while Archer Softech, with consultation from Ankur Raheja of Cylaw Solutions, represented the domain owner. This case serves as a reminder that common words, even those used by established companies, cannot be exclusively claimed in cybersquatting disputes if they have broader meanings or uses.
