Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Domain
Admin care of Logical Sites, Inc. a/k/a Domain Administrator care of Logical
Sites, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1003001310645
PARTIES
Complainant is Choice Hotels International, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Halle B. Markus, of Arent Fox LLP, Washington, DC, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin care of Logical Sites, Inc. a/k/a Domain Administrator care of Logical Sites, Inc. (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <eurekaspringscomfortinn.com>
and <surfsideeconolodge.com>,
registered with Moniker.
PANEL
The undersigned certify that they have acted independently and
impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in
serving as Panelists in this proceeding.
Jeffrey M. Samuels, Tyson R. Atkinson, Jr.,
and Diane Cabell, as Panelists.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on March 1, 2010.
On March 3, 2010, Moniker confirmed by e-mail to the National
Arbitration Forum that the <eurekaspringscomfortinn.com>
and <surfsideeconolodge.com>
domain names are registered with Moniker and that the Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Moniker has
verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker 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 March 5, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes,
including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 25,
2010 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to
all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical,
administrative, and billing contacts, and to
postmaster@eurekaspringscomfortinn.com and
postmaster@surfsideeconolodge.com. Also
on March 5, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of
the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response,
was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons
listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing
contacts.[1]
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March
18, 2010.
Complainant’s Additional Submission was received on March 23, 2010 in
compliance with Supplemental Rule 7.
Respondent, on March 26, 2010, filed a “Response to the Additional
Submission from Complainant.”
On March 26, 2010, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Jeffrey M. Samuels, Tyson R. Atkinson, Jr., and
Diane Cabell, as Panelists.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant Choice Hotels International is one of the world’s largest
lodging franchisors, with over 5,000 hotels around the world. Complainant owns numerous federal
registrations in the U.S. and abroad for the service marks COMFORT INN and
ECONO LODGE, as used in connection with hotel and motel services, including
online reservation services. See
Complaint, Annex A.[2] The COMFORT INN mark was first used since at
least as early as June 1981. The ECONO
LODGE mark has been in use since at least as early as May 1965. Both marks have been widely advertised and
publicized. Complainant also owns the
domain names confortinn.com and econolodge.com.
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are identical or
confusingly similar to marks in which it has rights. Complainant points out that the domain names
wholly incorporate the COMFORT INN or ECONO LODGE mark. It contends that the addition of the geographic
terms “Eureka Springs” and “Surfside” does not reduce the confusing similarity
between the marks and domain names.
Indeed, Complainant argues, the geographic identifiers “Eureka Springs”
and “Surfside” “merely exacerbate confusion given that Eureka Springs and
Surfside are commonly known resort destinations in the U.S. where tourists
might naturally presume Complainant’s hotels are located.”
Complainant further indicates that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant maintains that Respondent is not
now, and has never been, licensed or authorized by Complainant to use the
COMFORT INN or ECONO LODGE mark or to register or use any domain names
incorporating such marks.
Complainant notes that Respondent registered the
eurekaspringscomfortinn.com name on March 24, 2000 and the surfsideeconolodge.com
domain name on August 6, 2007, well after Complainant’s first use of such
marks. According to Complainant, the
eurekaspringscomfortinn.com domain name redirects internet users to a
commercial web site located at eurekasprings.com, which displays information
about Eureka Springs, Arkansas and prominently promotes hotel services that
directly compete with Complainant. Respondent’s surfsideeconolodge.com domain name
resolves to a pay-per-click website offering links to hotel services that
directly compete with Complainant. See
Complaint, Annex C.
Complainant asserts that “Respondent’s use of the entire Marks in the
Disputed Domain Names makes it difficult to infer a legitimate use…. Further,
use of a confusingly similar domain name to direct unsuspecting consumers to
competitive third-party services does not constitute a bona fide offering of
goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.” There is also,
Complainant adds, nothing indicating that Respondent claims to be named, or is
commonly known as, COMFORT INN or ECONO LODGE and/or the disputed domain names.
With respect to the issue of bad faith registration and use,
Complainant maintains that: (1) registration of a confusingly similar domain
name with knowledge of another’s mark is evidence of bad faith; (2) its COMFORT
INN and ECONO LODGE marks are well-known and widely advertised in the U.S. and
abroad and that the well-known nature of a mark “creates a prima facie
presumption that the respondent registered the domain name … to be used in some
way to attract for commercial gain users to the website by creating a
likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark”; (3) it can be inferred that
Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the
marks because the domain names were registered many years after Complainant
first used the COMFORT INN and ECONO LODGE marks and obtained federal
registration; (4) Respondent registered the disputed domain names to take
advantage of Complainant’s well-known marks by confusing and diverting internet
users to the disputed domain names, which are not owned by or affiliated with
Complainant, and offer hotel reservation services in direct competition with
those offered by Complainant; (5) attracting and diverting internet users
seeking information about Complainant’s hotel properties to third party
websites unaffiliated with Complainant is a disruption of Complainant’s
business; and (6) Respondent has a history of bad faith registration and use of
domain names, having been found to have violated ICANN policy in connection
with his registration and use of the domain name myflorida.mobi.[3]
B. Respondent
In its Response, Respondent “admit[s] that the
domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service
mark in which the Complainant has rights.”[4]
However, Respondent asserts that it has rights and legitimate interests
in the subject domain names. Respondent
explains that surfsideeconolodge.com originally belonged to the Econolodge in
Bradenton Beach, Florida and that the hotel was a paying client. The Bradenton Beach Econolodge was an
authorized licensee of Complainant. The
hotel, apparently, closed in 2003 and the domain name was due to expire in
2007. Respondent purchased the domain
name in a so-called “name-drop” auction for $60. See Response, Appendix 4. According to Respondent, “it is well
established through UDRP cases that if a trademark holder abandons a name, they
do not have an automatic right to have the domain name returned to
them.”[5]
With respect to the eurekaspringscomfortinn.com domain name, Respondent
indicates that the Comfort Inn in
“Later,
it turned out that this was just an excuse to buy time so that [the owner]
could move all the web material from eurekaspringscomfortinn to a new site,
namely comfortinneurekasprings.com. Once
we discovered this theft of copyrighted material belonging to us, we demanded
payment in full of the entire outstanding bill.
Suffice it to say that [the owner] did not pay the $621 owned to us, nor
did she care to rectify the copyright infringement she had committed….
“Furthermore,
and most importantly, by not paying any portion of our bill to her, [the owner]
abandoned eurekaspringscomfortinn.com.
Our very last bill we sent to her, which we
sent 3 times, had as the first item `Renewal of eurekaspringscomfortinn.com
(for one year)’. The second late notice has our standard bright orange insert
stating that all services and products will be cancelled if payment is not
received.
“The
Complainant licenses entities who employ people of
various skill levels in the area of intellectual property, does nothing in
their licensing agreements to force the licensee to use an intellectual
property attorney for IP matters …. Yet they expect us to just roll over and
hand over these names when their licensees abandon domain names.”
Respondent
contends that it did not register and does not use the disputed domain names in
bad faith. It reiterates the domain names were abandoned by Complainant’s
licensees and points out that it has not registered any other names involving
Complainant’s marks, nor did it approach Complainant offering to sell the
names. “When we offered to relinquish
surfsideeconolodge in August 2008 for $368, it merely reflected our weak
interest in that particular domain name,” and we clearly said that. See Response, Appendix 1.
Respondent
also notes that it has won several UDRP cases, involving the domain names
scania.mobi[6] and
heathrow.com. “In both of these cases …, the Panelist ruled that I or my
company had rights in the disputed domain names and thus denied the
Complainant’s request. They ruled that I
had rights in these names, Scania the truck manufacturer and Heathrow the
airport notwithstanding. In other words,
the Panel found that, also under the UDRP, trademark holder’s rights are
limited. We submit that the Panel should
similarly deny this Complaint for two reasons: 1/ We
have rights and a legitimate interest in the disputed domain names and 2/ this
is not the proper forum to decide cases involving abandoned domain names.”
Respondent
further argues that Complainant’s citation of one UDRP case to show a history
of bad faith registration and use is ridiculous, given the number of cases it
has won, and that it is not in competition with Complainant.
Respondent
also contends that its use of the domain names is not likely to result in any
consumer confusion. “So the question the
(sic) becomes: would a sufficiently large number of people looking at these
websites think that either is sponsored by, affiliated
with or endorsed by Complainant? While I
cannot prove it without [an] extensive and expensive survey, I am confident
that such a survey would show that an insignificant percentage would think
so. In other words, Complainant would
fail to be able to demonstrate confusion among the public in a court of
law. Almost no one looking at the sites
under the disputed domain names would think they are affiliated with
Complainant.”
Respondent concludes by noting that it is engaged in the publishing of
geographic portal websites and that its intent in owning the
disputed domain names is to publish geographic portal websites and
nothing else. Respondent indicates that
it earned less than $720 in 2009 from domain name parking.
C. Additional Submissions
In its Additional Submission, Complainant argues that the Bradenton
Beach ECONO LODGE never authorized Respondent to register the domain name in
Respondent’s name and, in any case, Complainant would not have authorized such
an action.
Complainant contends that the decision in the superfuzz.com case does
not support Respondent’s contention that, if a trademark holder abandons a
name, it does not have the automatic right to have the domain name returned to
it. Complainant indicates that the panel
in the superfuzz.com case denied the request to transfer because complainant
had abandoned the SUPER FUZZ mark before respondent registered the
superfuzz.com domain name and the term “super fuzz” was commonly understood to
refer to an electrical distortion device for guitars and respondent used his
website in good faith to promote guitar accessories. In this case, Complainant emphasizes,
Complainant has not abandoned either the ECONO LODGE or COMFORT INN marks,
neither of the marks is a common descriptive term, and Respondent is only using
the domain names to profit from the goodwill in Complainant’s marks.
With regard to the eurekaspringscomfortinn.com domain name, Complainant
notes that any dispute between Respondent and the property owner is outside the
scope of this proceeding and that Respondent registered the domain name in its
own name. Complainant indicates that the
franchised hotel had no authority to grant Respondent any right to use the
COMFORT INN mark or register the mark in any domain name. See Additional Submission, Exhibit A. Citing Michael
Miller v. J. Eric Arterburn c/o Soda Sunglasses, FA 832822 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Dec. 29, 2006), Complainant asserts that “[a] web site developer’s registration
of a domain name in its client name and then failing to relinquish the domain
name after the business relationship has ended is `unmistakable’ evidence of
bad faith use and registration.”
Complainant also contends that Respondent has demanded sums in excess
of its registration costs to transfer the disputed domain names to
Complainant. Complainant indicates that
Respondent first offered to sell the domain names to Complainant for $368 and
then demanded payment of $600. See
Additional Submission, Exhibit B.[7]
In its “Response … to the Additional Submission of Complainant,”[8] Respondent first challenges the statement in
Complainant’s additional submission that Respondent admitted that the disputed
domain names are “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service
mark in which Complainant has rights.”
According to Respondent, “[w]e did no such thing. We admitted everything in 5.A. of the
Complaint, a section in which neither the word `confusingly’ nor any variation
of it exists. This is a key point,
because although the disputed domain names contain the Complainant’s Marks, the
Panel will have to decide whether the domain names themselves
or our use of them causes confusion among the public.”[9] With respect to the likelihood of confusion
issue, Respondent asserts that “no one in their right mind would visit
surfsideeconolodge.com or eurekaspringscomfortinn.com and think that these
sites are Choice Hotel websites, or somehow affiliated by or sponsored by that
brand.”
Respondent also denies the allegation that it registered the domain
names to benefit from Complainant’s marks.
“We acquired these domain names when the Complainant’s licensees
abandoned them and we acquired them for the traffic that they might have….”
Respondent also takes issue with Complainant’s characterization of both
the “superfuzz” and Soda Sunglasses
cases. Respondent indicates that the
panel in the former case did not find that complainant had abandoned the mark
and in the latter case did not hold that failing to relinquish a domain name
after a business relationship has ended is “unmistakable evidence of bad faith
use and registration.” Rather, according
to Respondent, the panel in the Soda
Sunglasses case held that “Respondent’s actions unmistakably provide
evidence of bad faith registration and use.” [10]
Respondent further argues that Complainant’s reliance on Exhibit B to
its additional submission in an effort to establish bad faith registration and
use is improper. It contends that such
exhibit constitutes inadmissible evidence under Rule 408 of the Federal Rules
of Evidence since it was sent as part of an attempt to settle the matter.
FINDINGS
The Panel finds that: (1) the disputed domain
names are confusingly similar to a trademark(s) or service mark(s) in which
Complainant has rights; (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in
the subject domain names; and (3) the domain names were registered and are
being used in bad faith.
DISCUSSION
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.
Even if we did not find that Respondent has conceded
that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to
Complainant’s marks, it is clear to the Panel that the domain names are
confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks.
Both names incorporate Complainant’s marks in their entirety, merely
adding a geographic term and the generic top-level domain “.com.” See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Mar. 27, 2007) (finding that the addition of geographic terms, such as “cancun,”
to the end of the CHEAPTICKETS mark in the cheapticketscancun.com,
cheapticketscancun.biz, cheapticketscancun.net, and cheapticketscancun.org
domain names does not overcome a finding of confusing similarity under Policy
¶4(a)(1)).
The Panel also determines that, as a result
of its registration and use of the COMFORT INN and ECONO LODGE marks,
Complainant has rights in such marks.
The Panel concludes that Complainant has established
a prima facie case that Respondent
lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and that
Respondent has not shown the contrary. Respondent asserts that it has rights or
legitimate interests in this case because it registered the domain names only
after Complainant’s licensees abandoned such domain name registrations. There is no evidence, however, that the
licensees, let alone Complainant, authorized such action by Respondent. Indeed, the evidence indicates that the
licensees could not legally have authorized such action. Regardless,
registration after abandonment does not, of itself, establish a right or
legitimate interest.
The evidence further establishes that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services under the domain names, is not commonly known by the domain names, and is not making a noncommercial or fair use of such names. The evidence indicates that the disputed domain names resolve or redirect to commercial websites featuring third-party links to businesses that directly compete with Complainant. A majority of the Panel is of the opinion that such use does not constitute a “bona fide” offering under the Policy. See Persohn v. Lim, FA874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding that respondent was not using a disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by redirecting internet users to a commercial search engine website with links to multiple websites that may be of interest to complainant’s customers and presumably earning “click-through fees” in the process); St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (holding that using an identical or confusingly similar domain name to earn click-through fees via sponsored links to a complainant’s competitors does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services under ¶Policy 4(c)(1) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under ¶Policy 4(c) (iii). The third Panelist believes that there is no bona fide right or interest because Respondent registered the domain in an attempt to obtain settlement of a debt owed it and not for a legitimate fair use.
The Panel unanimously determines that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. As determined above, the domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ECONO LODGE and COMFORT INN marks. The Panel further finds that Respondent, through his employment with Complainant’s franchisees, as well as the longstanding and widespread use of such marks, was aware of such marks at the time the domain names were registered. The evidence also indicates that the disputed domain names resolve to commercial websites featuring third-party links to businesses that directly compete with Complainant and that Respondent earns income[11] through such activity.
In view of the above, the Panel concludes
that, by using the domain names, Respondent has intentionally attempted to
attract, for commercial gain, internet users to such sites by creating a
likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation or endorsement of such sites or the services on such sites, within
the meaning of ¶Policy 4(b)(iv).
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy,
the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <eurekaspringscomfortinn.com><
surfsideeconolodge.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent
to Complainant.
Jeffrey M. Samuels, Panel Chair
Dated: April 9, 2010
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum
[1] In its Response, Respondent cited a number of procedural deficiencies in the manner in which NAF processed this matter, including that Respondent received the complaint through the registrar, rather than through NAF or Complainant. Respondent also indicates that Complainant and the case coordinator wrote about an “amended complaint” but that the rules state that additional submissions must not amend the Complaint or Response. There is no evidence before the Panel indicating any procedural error by NAF, nor does it appear that Respondent was prejudiced by the manner it received notice of the complaint. Moreover, the Panel does not understand the filing of an amended complaint to constitute an additional submission.
[2] Upon review of Annex A, it appears that only the COMFORT INN mark is registered for use in connection with online reservation services.
[3] See
[4] Respondent takes issue, however, with Complainant’s characterization of its marks as being “famous.” Elsewhere in its Response, Respondent challenges Complainant’s statement that it has the exclusive right to use the marks with the services specified.
[5] Respondent cites the UDRP decision involving the superfuzz.com domain name in support of such position. See WIPO Case No. D2006-1546 (March 9, 2007). There is no evidence in the instant matter that Complainant, who is the trademark holder, itself abandoned the domain names.
[6] See WIPO Case No. D2007-1835 (Feb. 7, 2008).
[7] The Panel reminds Complainant that an additional submission should be reserved for issues that could not reasonably have been addressed in one’s initial filing. Complainant’s contention regarding Respondent’s offer to sell the domain names could have, and should have, been addressed in the Complaint. Moreover, much of Complainant’s additional submission simply regurgitates argument made in the Complaint, which should similarly be avoided.
[8] The Panel considers this filing to be, in effect, Respondent’s additional submission.
[9] The Panel has reviewed Respondent’s Response, the relevant portion of which is quoted in the text of the opinion. It is clear to the Panel that Respondent, indeed, conceded that the domain names in issue are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. Such concession is relevant for purposes of determining whether Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy. Whether the use of such domain names is likely to cause confusion, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, is a separate issue.
[10] The Panel has reviewed the panel’s decision in the Soda Sunglasses case and confirms Respondent’s recitation of what the panel stated. The Panel has also reviewed the decision in the superfuzz.com case. Respondent is correct that the Panel found in that case that complainant trademark owner had established rights in the mark in issue. The panel, in declining to order transfer of the domain name, stated, in part, as follows:
It is fair to
conclude that the Respondent had never heard of the Complainant or the
Complainant’s band until receiving the Complaint in these proceedings.
The evidence suggests that the Respondent registered
the disputed domain name because it is a common term related to guitars.
The Complainant has not demonstrated that the
Respondent was aware of the Complainant or its SUPERFUZZ trademark, and has not
provided sufficient evidence to show that its SUPERFUZZ trademark was so
well-known that the Respondent would likely have been aware of it.
To show bad faith, the Complainant appears to rely in
part upon paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, namely, that the Respondent has
registered the disputed domain name in order to intentionally attract, for
commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s web site by creating a
likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. In order to show this, the Complainant relies
upon registration by the Respondent of a large number of domain names, some of
which appear to be generic terms and others of which may not be. The Panel believes that in the factual
circumstances of this case, the Respondent’s registration of a large number of
domain names does not necessarily show bad faith by the Respondent towards the
Complainant or its mark. There is no
evidence that registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent was to
intentionally attract Internet users looking for the Complainant or his band.
There is no evidence that the Respondent registered
the disputed domain name for any of the purposes set out in paragraph 4(b) of
the Policy.
The Panel is unable to draw the required conclusions
as to bad faith where the disputed domain name appears to comprise a generic
word, where the Complainant has not actively used its trademark for a number of
years, including the period of domain name registration and where the
Complainant and Respondent are located in different countries.
[11] The fact that such income may be de minimus is immaterial.