DECISION

 

Best Western International, Inc. v. Excell Internet Inc.

Claim Number: FA0204000110867

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Best Western International, Inc., Phoenix, AZ (“Complainant”) represented by Meghan A. Wharton, of Brown & Bain, P.A.  Respondent is Excell Internet, Inc., Riverdale, NY (“Respondent”).

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bestwesternhotel.com>, registered with Bulkregister.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on April 26, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 26, 2002.

 

On April 29, 2002, Bulkregister confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <bestwesternhotel.com> is registered with Bulkregister and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Bulkregister has verified that Respondent is bound by the Bulkregister registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

 

On April 29, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 20, 2002 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bestwesternhotel.com by e-mail.

 

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On June 4, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the 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.”  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A.     Complainant makes the following allegations:

 

The <bestwesternhotel.com> domain name that Respondent registered is confusingly similar to Complainant's BEST WESTERN mark.  Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Since 1946, Complainant has used the BEST WESTERN mark in relation to hotel services.  Complainant first registered the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on the Principal Register on June 8, 1971 as Registration Number 914,813.  Complainant also registered its BEST WESTERN mark throughout the world.  Complainant’s mark has considerable good will and is known throughout the world.  Complainant’s website is located at <bestwestern.com>.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 16, 1999.  Respondent has not developed a website for the domain.

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.

 

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; and

(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 to and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant has established that it has rights in the BEST WESTERN mark because it registered the mark in the United States and internationally.  Furthermore, Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and merely adds the generic word “hotel.”  The addition of  a generic term that describes Complainant’s business does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity.  See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd.  v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the Complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Space Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the Respondent’s domain name combines Complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business); see also Marriott Int’l v. Café au lait, FA 93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <marriott-hotel.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARRIOTT mark).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

 

Rights to or Legitimate Interests

 

Respondent did not come forward with a Response and therefore it is presumed that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names).

 

Furthermore, when Respondent fails to submit a Response the Panel is permitted to make all inferences in favor of Complainant.  See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009, (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint”).

 

Respondent never developed a website at the disputed domain name even though it has held possession of the domain name since 1999.  Respondent therefore has never used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).  Furthermore, Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent failed to submit a Response to the Complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question); see also Vestel Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret AS v. Mehmet Kahveci, D2000-1244 (WIPO Nov. 11, 2000) (finding that “merely registering the domain name is not sufficient to establish rights or legitimate interests for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy”).

 

The fame of Complainant’s mark permits the inference that Respondent is not commonly known as BEST WESTERN or <bestwesternhotel.com> and that, therefore, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark); see also Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, D2000-1397 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where one “would be hard pressed to find a person who may show a right or legitimate interest” in a domain name containing Complainant's distinct and famous NIKE trademark); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Asdak, FA 96542 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2001) (finding sufficient proof that Respondent was not commonly known by a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark because of Complainant’s well-established use of the mark).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Because Complainant’s mark is so well known it can be inferred that Respondent had constructive or actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark when it registered the disputed domain name; therefore Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith.  See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration); see also Nintendo of Am. Inc v. Pokemon, D2000-1230 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding that Respondent, at the time of registration, had notice of Complainant’s famous POKÉMON and PIKACHU trademarks given their extreme popularity).

 

Furthermore, Respondent has held the registration of the disputed domain name for two years without developing a website.  Passive holding is considered to be bad faith.  See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the bad faith registration and use requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Mondich & Am. Vintage Wine Biscuits, Inc. v. Brown, D2000-0004 (WIPO Feb. 16, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s failure to develop its website in a two year period raises the inference of registration in bad faith).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be hereby granted.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name <bestwesternhotel.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist

Dated: June 18, 2002.

 

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page