Occidental Hoteles Management, S.L. and Promtal Servicios S.L. v. Kenny Kan
Claim Number: FA0812001237613
Complainant is Occidental Hoteles Management, S.L. and Promtal
Servicios S.L (“Complainant”),
represented by Joshua D. Yeager, of Cremer, Shaughnessy, Spina, Jansen, & Siegert LLC, Illinois,
USA. Respondent is Kenny Kan
(“Respondent”),
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <occidental-hotels.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 9, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 10, 2008.
On December 9, 2008, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <occidental-hotels.com> domain name is registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and that 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 January
15, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
February 4, 2009
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@occidental-hotels.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 16, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf, (Ret.), as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <occidental-hotels.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s OCCIDENTAL HOTELS AND RESORTS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <occidental-hotels.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <occidental-hotels.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Occidental Hoteles Management, S.L., operates hotels and resorts around the world. Complainant owns several trademark registrations, including a registration with the Spanish Office of Patents and Marks for the OCCIDENTAL HOTELS AND RESORTS mark (Reg. No. 2,366,919 issued June 20, 2001).
Respondent registered the <occidental-hotels.com> domain name on August 21, 2005. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website offering hotel and resort accomodations in direct competition with Complainant.
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. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also 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.”).
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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the OCCIDENTAL HOTELS AND RESORTS mark through its registration with the Spanish Office of Patents and Marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Davidoff & Cie SA v. Darnell, FA 97331 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 23, 2001) (finding that the complainant had rights in the DAVIDOFF mark through its multiple trademark registrations for the mark with the Spanish Office of Patents and Marks); see also Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Domain Admin., FA 791619 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 18, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the CLARION HOTEL mark through registration of the mark with the Spanish trademark authority).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <occidental-hotels.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
OCCIDENTAL HOTELS AND RESORTS mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed
domain name contains the dominant portion of Complainant’s OCCIDENTAL HOTELS
AND RESORTS mark after omitting the articles “resorts” and “and,” adding a
hyphen, and adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that the articles “resort”
and “and” are undistinguishing characteristics of the OCCIDENTAL HOTELS AND
RESORTS mark in terms of determining confusing similarity. See Am. Eagle Outfitters, Inc. v. Admin, FA 473826 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 22, 2005) (finding
the <americaneaglestores.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to
the complainant’s AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS mark); see also Antoun v. Truth Squad, FA 114766 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug.
21, 2002) (stating that the article "the" is "often added
only for grammatical purposes, and may be superfluous to the name itself"). In addition, the Panel finds that a disputed
domain name that adds a hyphen to a registered mark creates a confusing
similarity between the disputed domain name and the established mark. See Health Devices Corp. v.
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the <occidental-hotels.com> domain name. When Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden is shifted to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds that in this case, Complainant has established a prima facie case. See Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. Samjo CellTech.Ltd, FA 406512 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2005) (“Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights to the Domain Name. The threshold for making such a showing is quite low, since it is difficult to produce evidence to support a negative statement. Here, Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not own any rights in the terms STARWOOD or STARWOODS, and that Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is not a fair one. These unsupported assertions, though sparse, are sufficient to make a prima facie showing in regard to the legitimacy element.”); see also Document Techs., Inc. v. Int’l Elec. Commc’ns Inc., D2000-0270 (WIPO June 6, 2000) (“Although Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove the presence of this element (along with the other two), once a Complainant makes out a prima facie showing, the burden of production on this factor shifts to the Respondent to rebut the showing by providing concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.”).
Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“Given Respondent’s failure to submit a substantive answer in a timely fashion, the Panel accepts as true all of the allegations of the complaint.”); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence). However, the Panel chooses to examine the evidence for applicable Policy ¶ 4(c) elements before making a final determination with regards to Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests.
Complainant asserts that Respondent is neither commonly
known by the <occidental-hotels.com>
domain name, nor licensed to register domain names using the OCCIDENTAL HOTELS
AND RESORTS mark. Respondent’s WHOIS
information identifies Respondent as “Kenny Kan,” and therefore lacks any
defining characteristics relating it to the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that without affirmative
evidence of being commonly known by the disputed domain name, Respondent
lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July
7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed
domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in
the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the
disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to
register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also M. Shanken
Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM,
FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent
was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and
other evidence in the record).
Respondent’s <occidental-hotels.com> domain name resolves to Respondent’s commercial website
offering products and services in direct competition with Complainant. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the
disputed domain name is neither a bona
fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321
(Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of [Complainant’s]
SAFLOK mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not
constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.”); see also DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v.
BargainDomainNames.com, FA 104580 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2002) (“Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in
connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent
is using the domain name to divert Internet users to <visual.com>, where
services that compete with Complainant are advertised.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the <occidental-hotels.com> domain name to operate a website in direct competition with Complainant constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and qualifies as bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s business); see also Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites).
Respondent is using the disputed domain name in order to intentionally attract Internet users to its website by creating a strong possiblity of confusion with Complainant’s OCCIDENTAL HOTELS AND RESORTS mark. Respondent offers products and services in direct competition with Complainant, which is further evidence of bad faith. Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), the Panel finds this use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use. See Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration by using domain names that were identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to redirect users to a website that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also State Fair of Tex. v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent registered the domain name <bigtex.net> to infringe on the complainant’s goodwill and attract Internet users to the respondent’s website).
The Panel finds that ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <occidental-hotels.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
__________________________________________________________________
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: March 2, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum