Travelocity.com LP v. Rampe Purda
Claim Number: FA1008001343690
Complainant is Travelocity.com LP ("Complainant"), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Rampe Purda ("Respondent"), Finland.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <travelolcity.com>, registered with HEBEI GUOJI MAOYI (SHANGHAI) LTD d/b/a HEBEIDOMAINS.COM.
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.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 27, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on August 30, 2010. The Complaint was submitted in both Finnish and English.
On August 30, 2010, HEBEI GUOJI MAOYI (SHANGHAI) LTD d/b/a HEBEIDOMAINS.COM confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <travelolcity.com> domain name is registered with HEBEI GUOJI MAOYI (SHANGHAI) LTD d/b/a HEBEIDOMAINS.COM and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HEBEI GUOJI MAOYI (SHANGHAI) LTD d/b/a HEBEIDOMAINS.COM has verified that Respondent is bound by the HEBEI GUOJI MAOYI (SHANGHAI) LTD d/b/a HEBEIDOMAINS.COM 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 September 9, 2010, the Forum served the Finnish language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Finnish language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 29, 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@travelolcity.com Also on September 9, 2010, the Finish language 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 13, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a 1-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Finnish language Complaint and Commencement Notification and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <travelolcity.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRAVELOCITY.COM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <travelolcity.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <travelolcity.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Travelocity.com LP, owns two trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its TRAVELOCITY (Reg. No. 2,254,700 issued June 22, 1999) and TRAVELOCITY.COM marks (Reg. No. 2,466,132 issued July 3, 2001). Complainant utilizes these marks in connection with its travel-related products and services.
Respondent, Rampe Purda, registered the <travelolcity.com> domain name on July 29, 2007. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked website featuring hyperlinks to third-parties, some of which compete with Complainant in the travel industry.
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 a trademark registration with a federal trademark authority, no matter if the mark is registered in the country that the respondent resides in or not, is sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Miller Brewing Co. v. Miller Family, FA 104177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 15, 2002) (finding that the complainant had established rights to the MILLER TIME mark through its federal trademark registrations); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s federal trademark registrations for the CHEAPTICKETS and CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks were adequate to establish its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence). Complainant holds trademark registrations with the USPTO for its TRAVELOCITY (Reg. No. 2,254,700 issued June 22, 1999) and TRAVELOCITY.COM marks (Reg. No. 2,466,132 issued July 3, 2001). The USPTO is a federal trademark authority. Therefore, the Panel determines that Complainant has established rights in its TRAVELOCITY and TRAVELOCITY.COM marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent’s <travelolcity.com> domain name contains a misspelled version of Complainant’s TRAVELOCITY.COM mark. The disputed domain name differs from Complainant’s mark by a single letter, the addition of the letter “l.” The Panel determines that the addition of a single letter does not sufficiently differentiate the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (finding the respondent’s <microssoft.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s MICROSOFT mark because they differ by only one letter, and “such a small alteration is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”); see also Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, D2000-1571 (WIPO Jan. 15, 2001) (finding that the domain names <tdwatergouse.com> and <dwaterhouse.com> are virtually identical to the complainant’s TD WATERHOUSE name and mark). Based on such a finding, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <travelolcity.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRAVELOCITY.COM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <travelolcity.com> domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); 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).
The UDRP allows a respondent to establish rights in a disputed domain name, even if the respondent does not own trademark or service mark rights in the domain name, if the respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. In the absence of a Response, the Panel examines the record, the WHOIS information, and whether Complainant authorized Respondent to use its mark. 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 Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply). After examining the record, the Panel finds no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the <travelolcity.com> domain name. The WHOIS information identifies the domain name registrant as “Rampe Purda,” which the Panel determines is not similar to the <travelolcity.com> domain name. Complainant asserts that it has not granted Respondent permission to use Complainant’s TRAVELOCITY or TRAVELOCITY.COM marks in a domain name. With these findings in mind, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <travelolcity.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The UDRP also allows a respondent to develop rights and legitimate interests if the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Previous panels have held that the use of a disputed domain name to resolves to a parked website containing hyperlinks that resolve to competitors of a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. Albloushi, FA 888651 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 26, 2007) (rejecting the respondent’s contention of rights and legitimate interests in the <bravoclub.com> domain name because the respondent was merely using the domain name to operate a website containing links to various competing commercial websites, which the panel did not find to be a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Skyhawke Techns., LLC v. Tidewinds Group, Inc., FA 949608 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2007) (“Respondent is using the <skycaddy.com> domain name to display a list of hyperlinks, some of which advertise Complainant and its competitors’ products. The Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). In this case, Respondent uses the <travelolcity.com> domain name to host a parked website that features hyperlinks to unrelated third-parties and third-parties that compete with Complainant in the travel industry. The Panel agrees with the decisions of previous panels and holds that Respondent’s use of the <travelolcity.com> domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <travelolcity.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
In addition, Respondent’s use of the <travelolcity.com> domain name, a common misspelling of Complainant’s TRAVELOCITY and TRAVELOCITY.COM marks, constitutes typosquatting. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of a disputed domain name, that is a common misspelling of Complainant’s marks, to redirect Internet users seeking Complainant, is further evidence that Respondent fails to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (concluding that by registering the <microssoft.com> domain name, the respondent had “engaged in typosquatting, which provides additional evidence that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it “engaged in the practice of typosquatting by taking advantage of Internet users who attempt to access Complainant's <indymac.com> website but mistakenly misspell Complainant's mark by typing the letter ‘x’ instead of the letter ‘c’”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel determines that, if a respondent has been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings in which the panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants, the Panel may find evidence of such proceedings to be evidence of bad faith registration and use in the current case at hand. Respondent has been the respondent in other UDRP proceedings in which disputed domain names were transferred from Respondent to the respective complainants in those cases. See AOL Inc. v. Rampe Purda, FA 1330828 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 29, 2010); see also Hewlett-Packard Dev. Co., L.P. v. Rampe Purda, FA 1298005 (Nat. Arb. Forum February 2, 2010). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the <travelolcity.com> domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Nat’l Abortion Fed’n v. Dom 4 Sale, Inc., FA 170643 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 9, 2003) (finding bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) because the domain name prevented the complainant from reflecting its mark in a domain name and the respondent had several adverse decisions against it in previous UDRP proceedings, which established a pattern of cybersquatting); see also Arai Helmet Americas, Inc. v. Goldmark, D2004-1028 (WIPO Jan. 22, 2005 ((finding that “Respondent has registered the disputed domain name, <aria.com>, to prevent Complainant from registering it” and taking notice of another UDRP proceeding against the respondent to find that “this is part of a pattern of such registrations”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), a panel may find bad faith registration and use if the disputed domain name was registered and is used to disrupt a complainant’s business. The <travelolcity.com> domain name resolves to a website that contains hyperlinks to Complainant’s third-party competitors in the travel industry. Internet users interested in Complainant may purchase travel related products and services from a competitor due to Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name. The Panel holds that such a use disrupts Complainant’s business, which constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant).
Respondent is using the confusingly similar <travelolcity.com> domain name to host a website that contains pay-per-click hyperlinks to Complainant’s competitors. Respondent is attempting to profit from its confusingly similar domain name by creating confusion as to Complainant’s sponsorship of, and affiliation with, the disputed domain name and resolving website. Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) instructs a panel to find bad faith registration and use if a respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website. Based on the facts in evidence, the Panel holds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Dell Inc. v. Innervision Web Solutions, FA 445601 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was using the <dellcomputerssuck.com> domain name to divert Internet users to respondent’s website offering competing computer products and services).
Furthermore, Respondent has engaged in typosquatting through its use of the <travelolcity.com> domain name, which is a common misspelling of Complainant’s TRAVELOCITY and TRAVELOCITY.COM marks. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s engagement in the practice of typosquatting constitutes additional bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Tak Ume domains for sale, FA 154528 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2003) (“Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name demonstrates a practice commonly referred to as ‘typosquatting.’ This practice diverts Internet users who misspell Complainant’s mark to a website apparently owned by Respondent for Respondent’s commercial gain. ‘Typosquatting’ has been recognized as evidencing bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 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 <travelolcity.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: October 15, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page