HLT Domestic IP LLC v. Mark
Stembler
Claim Number: FA0807001214843
PARTIES
Complainant is HLT Domestic IP LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Holly
S. Hawkins, of Alston & Bird LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hiltonspa.com>, registered with Godaddy.com,
Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and
impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving
as Panelist in this proceeding.
Jeffrey M. Samuels as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on July 10, 2008; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 11, 2008.
On July 11, 2008, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the
National Arbitration Forum that the <hiltonspa.com> domain name is
registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and
that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.com,
Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, Inc. 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 July 15, 2008, a Notification
of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”), setting a deadline of August 4, 2008 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@hiltonspa.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 1, 2008.
On August 8, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Jeffrey M. Samuels as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant, HLT Domestic IP LLC, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Hilton Hotels Corp. (Hilton). Hilton is
a global leader in the hospitality industry, owning, managing, or franchising
nearly 2800 hotels, resorts, and other temporary accommodations in more than 80
countries. Since at least as early as
1925, Hilton has used the HILTON mark to identify high quality hotel services. Today there are more than 514 HILTON branded
hotels worldwide.
Hilton operates spa and leisure facilities at various HILTON resort and
hotel properties. HILTON spas offer a
full range of spa services, including massages, body wraps, facial treatments
and the like. There are currently more
than 27 HILTON-branded resorts and hotels that operate spas.
Complainant owns a number of trademark registrations in the
Respondent registered the disputed domain name, <hiltonspa.com>, on June 25, 2006. Respondent is using the domain name to host a
website that states: “[i]f you are looking for Hilton Spas, Hilton Hotels, Hilton
Resorts or anything Hilton Spas related … You have come to the right
website!” The disputed website includes
various images of resort scenes which fade in and out and are replaced by names
including “Hilton Hotels,” “Hilton Resorts,” “Anaheim Hilton Hotel,” “Hilton
Hotel Las Vegas,” and “Hilton Sedona Arizona.”
The images/names are links that, when clicked, take the user to another page within the site
with sponsored links for travel sites selling vacation and hotel packages,
including hotel packages at hotels that are competitors of Hilton. Upon information and belief, Complainant
asserts that Respondent generates revenue on a pay-per-click basis each time a
visitor to his site clicks on one of these links.
Hilton asserts that it has sent three letters to Respondent at the
email address provided in the WHOIS record for the domain name demanding that
Respondent cease further use of the domain name and transfer it to Hilton. To date, Hilton has not received any response
to its letters.
Complainant alleges that it owns valid and enforceable rights in the
HILTON mark and that the domain name in issue – <hiltonspa.com> – is confusingly similar to the HILTON mark.
Complainant further contends that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the domain name.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no connection or affiliation of
any kind with Hilton, nor has Hilton ever authorized, licensed, or permitted
Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name.
Complainant also maintains that Respondent is not commonly known by the
name “Hilton Spa,” has never used the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services,
and has not made any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name.
With respect to the issue of “bad faith” registration and use,
Complainant indicates that “it is clear that Respondent registered the Domain
Name with the intent of capturing Internet traffic looking for the Hilton web
site so that Respondent could then drive the traffic to the unaffiliated,
commercial web sites of third parties, including Hilton’s competitors, for Respondent’s
financial gain. This ‘abusive
cybersquatting’ constitutes textbook evidence of bad faith registration and use
in violation of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”
B. Respondent
In his Response, Respondent contends that he never received any of the
Complainant’s “cease and desist” letters.
Respondent indicates, however, that he does not wish to contest further
ownership of the <hiltonspa.com>
domain name and “grant[s] permission for the Domain Name: <hiltonspa.com> to be transferred over to the Complainant.”
DISCUSSION
Given Respondent’s consent to the transfer of the domain name to Complainant, the Panel determines that it need not engage in a discussion of whether each of the elements of the applicable Policy has been satisfied and may, instead, simply order the transfer of the domain name to Complainant. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
DECISION
In view of Respondent’s consent to transfer of the domain name in
dispute, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <hiltonspa.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Jeffrey M. Samuels, Panelist
Dated: August 18, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
[1] Such registrations include Registration No. 845,172, issued in February 1968, and Registration No. 2,478,190, issued in August 2001.