National Arbitration Forum


DECISION LP v. Fish Head Stew c/o of Mike Schmitz

Claim Number: FA0912001299329



Complainant is LP (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA.  Respondent is Fish Head Stew c/o of Mike Schmitz (“Respondent”), Colorado, USA




The domain names at issue are <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <>, registered with, Inc.



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


Carol M. Stoner, Esq., as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 15, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 16, 2009.


On December 16, 2009,, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> domain names are registered with, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name., Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the, 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 December 23, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of January 12, 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,,,,,,, and by e-mail.


A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on January 12, 2010.


On January 21, 2010, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Carol M. Stoner, Esq.,  as Panelist.




In the instant case, Complainant has requested the relief that Respondent’s disputed domain names be transferred to the Complainant. 


Likewise, Respondent, in its Response, stated its wish that it wants to transfer the domain names at the earliest possible convenience. However, after the initiation of this

proceeding,, Inc. placed a hold on Respondent’s account and therefore

Respondent cannot transfer the disputed domain names while this proceeding is still



In a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain names, but instead agrees to transfer the domain names in question to Complainant, the Panel is empowered to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and to order an immediate transfer of the disputed domain names.


Further, Panel, in adherence to the well-hewn judicial policy favoring expediency, has no mandate to make findings of fact, or of compliance (or not) with UDRP Policy.


Therefore, Panel has foregone the UDRP analysis and has ordered the transfer of the disputed domain names. 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.”).





Complainant requests that the disputed domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.




A. Complainant alleges as follows:


The following domain names are the subject of this Complaint, and are hereinafter referred to as “the Disputed Domain Names:”


 <>; <>; <>; <>; <>; <>; <>; and <>.                    


Sabre Holdings Corporation, through its subsidiary, Sabre, Inc., engages in marketing of travel products, as well as in the provision of distribution and technology solutions for the travel industry in the United States.  The company operates in three segments: Travelocity, Sabre Travel Network, and Sabre Airline Solutions. The Travelocity segment markets and distributes travel-related products and services to individuals, including leisure travels and business travelers.  It also provides content and functionality to, and markets and sells products and services, through private-label Web sites for suppliers, distribution partners, and travel agencies.


Travelocity is a leading provider of consumer-direct travel services for the leisure and business traveler.  Since in start in 1996, Travelocity has continuously used the mark TRAVELOCITY in connection with travel related services. . 


Headquartered in Southlake, Texas, Travelocity has won dozens of awards in both travel and Internet categories since its launch in 1996.  <> attracts an average of 8 million users monthly. As such, <> enjoys wide consumer recognition and acceptance of its brand. As of the last public financial reporting in 2006, Travelocity’s global gross travel booked revenues was $10.1 billion.   


Complainant is the owner of numerous federal trademark and/or servicemark registrations in the United States that consist of, or include the word TRAVELOCITY.

Complainant has attached these registrations (hereinafter referred to as “Complainant’s Marks”) as Exhibit E to the Complaint.  The primary goods and services for which these marks are registered are: for providing airline, car rental, tour package, and general travel information via a global computer network; and for online retail services in the field of travel.  None of the federal mark registrations have abandoned, cancelled or revoked, but rather have become incontestable through the filing of Section 8 and 5 affidavits in the USPTO. 




By virtue of its federal trademark and/or servicemark registrations, cited above, Complainant is the owner of said marks. The Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks because the addition or variation of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is confusingly similar. Further, the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s Marks because they differ by only a singular character from Complainant’s Marks or because they differ by only the juxtaposition of two characters when compared to Complainant’s Marks.


Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names as: Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain names; Respondent is not sponsored by or legitimately affiliated with Complainant in any way; Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s marks in a domain name; and Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names significantly after Complainant’s registration of <> on January 23, 1997.


Complainant further alleges that Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith as : Respondent has ignored Complainant’s attempts to resolve the dispute outside of the administrative proceeding; Respondent’s typosquatting behavior is, in and of itself, evidence of bad faith; Respondent is using some or all of the Disputed Domain Names to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s own website through Complainant’s affiliate program, which is in direct violation of Complainant’s affiliate agreement; and Respondent has cause the websites reachable by some or all of the Disputed Domain Names to display content and or keywords directly related to Complainant's business.          


B. Respondent Alleges as Follows:


Respondent Fish Head Stew states that it wishes to transfer the Disputed Domain Names to Travelocity at the earliest possible convenience.


Respondent states that there was no real attempt (in accordance with case section 5ci) to contact Fish Head Stew regarding this dispute, although Complainant, Travelocity’s staff had FHS email information, telephone information, a complete business address, and updated information listed both on Godaddy’s site and on the Commission Junction site. 


Respondent further alleges that Travelocity has engaged in unfair trademark practices regarding FHS.  Specifically, FHS alleges that without warning or permission,  Travelocity copied the entire website used by FHS, as evidenced by the presence of FHS’s CJ affiliate codes embedded into the site code now used by Travelocity. 

Travelocity subsequently terminated the branded bidding arrangement with FHS. Travelocity’s copying of FHS’s landing site has resulted in a significant loss of revenue to FHS.





FHS is a long time affiliate of Travelocity, and as such, had purchased the Disputed Domain Names from businesses that had been directing them to the websites of competitors of Travelocity.  Respondent further alleges that Travelocity’s staff

instructed FHS’s staff to bid on the branded keywords of competing travel sites, in order to induce these competitors to stop bidding on Travelocity’s branded keywords. 



Panel has granted Complainant’s and Respondent’s mutual request to transfer the disputed domains to Complainant, Travelocity, and as such, has made noUDRP Policy analysis.  Panel therefore, orders that the following domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant: <>; <>; <>; <>; <>; <>; <>; and <>.        



Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”


Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2)   the 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.



Panel has GRANTED Complainant’s and Respondent’s mutual request to transfer the disputed domains to Complainant.  


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.



Carol M. Stoner, Esq.,  Panelist
Dated: February 5, 2010


Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum