WIPO D2003-0455 · decided 21 August 2003
Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.
The parties
- Complainant
- Croatia Airlines d.d.
- Respondent
- Modern Empire Internet Ltd.
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found croatiaairlines.com confusingly similar to the CROATIA AIRLINES trade and service mark, since the only difference was the addition of ".com". |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel held that once Croatia Airlines made a prima facie case, the burden shifted to Modern Empire Internet, which filed no response, so the second element was satisfied. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found Modern Empire Internet must have known of the CROATIA AIRLINES mark and used the domain name to divert ticket buyers to its own site for commercial gain. |
Why does Croatia Airlines matter for a complaint today?
In Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., D2003-0455, a sole panelist ordered croatiaairlines.com transferred back to the Croatian national airline. Croatia Airlines had owned the domain name before, but the registration expired. Modern Empire Internet registered it on 12 May 2003 and used it for a site selling airline tickets and other goods. The panel's main point is about proof. The UDRP asks the complainant to prove that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests, which means proving a negative. The panel said that burden is light. Once Croatia Airlines made a prima facie case, the burden shifted to the respondent, and a respondent who files nothing is deemed to lose the element. The WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1, states the same rule. For a business owner, this means a short, well-evidenced complaint can win against a silent registrant. The limit is in section 4.3 of the Overview: default does not mean the complainant automatically wins, and wholly unsupported allegations can still fail. The case also carries a practical warning. Croatia Airlines lost its own domain name when the registration lapsed, and needed a UDRP complaint to get it back.
What does the WIPO Overview 3.1 say?
The WIPO Overview 3.1 summarises how WIPO panels decide each issue. These sections cover the same point of law.
- Section 2.1: How do panels assess whether a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name? The Overview cites this decision here.
- Section 4.3: Does a respondent's default/failure to respond to the complainant's contentions automatically result in the complaint succeeding? The Overview cites this decision here.
- Section 3.2.1: Additional bad faith consideration factors The Overview cites this decision here.
Who decided the case?
A single panelist, Hub J. Harmeling, decided the case on 21 August 2003.
Read the decision
The full text is published by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. We summarise it here; the decision itself is the authority.
Summarised by Gergana Dimitrova, who worked at the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center from 2018 to 2021 and sits as a domain name panelist at the Czech Arbitration Court. Checked against the published decision on 23 October 2026. Full background.
Someone has taken a domain that uses your brand?
The first assessment is free and comes back within 24 hours. If the case is weak we say so rather than take the fee.