national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Travelocity.com LP v. Gioacchino Zerbo

Claim Number: FA1008001343692

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Travelocity.com LP (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA.  Respondent is Gioacchino Zerbo (“Respondent”), Italy.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <tarvelocity.com>, registered with Fabulous.Com Pty Ltd.

 

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.

 

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 27, 2010.

 

On August 30, 2010, Fabulous.Com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <tarvelocity.com> domain name is registered with Fabulous.Com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Fabulous.Com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Fabulous.Com Pty Ltd. 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 August 31, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 20, 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@tarvelocity.com by e-mail.  Also on August 31, 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.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On October 5, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (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 a Written Notice, as defined in Rule 1.  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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <tarvelocity.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRAVELOCITY mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <tarvelocity.com> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <tarvelocity.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Travelocity.com LP, provides consumer-direct travel services for the leisure and business traveler.  Complainant holds trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the TRAVELOCITY mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,254,700 registered June 22, 1999).


Respondent, Gioacchino Zerbo, registered the <tarvelocity.com> domain name on March 26, 2002.  The disputed domain name resolves to a directory website that lists hyperlinks to third-party websites that provide travel services that compete with Complainant’s business.

 

Complainant offers evidence that Respondent has a history of registering domain names that infringe upon the trademark rights of others and has been ordered by previous UDRP panels to transfer the disputed domain names to the respective complainants. See CollegeNET, Inc. v. Gioacchino Zerbo, FA 1269200 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 28, 2009); see also GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Gioacchino Zerbo, FA 1220824 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 21, 2008); see also Rocky Brands, Inc. v. Gioacchino Zerbo, FA 1233952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2009).

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant claims rights in the TRAVELOCITY mark through its registrations of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,254,700 registered June 22, 1999).  The Panel finds these trademark registrations sufficiently prove Complainant’s rights in the TRAVELOCITY mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).  The Panel also finds that Complainant need not register its mark in the country where Respondent resides or operates to establish rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Renaissance Cochin, FA 932344 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2007) (finding that it does not matter whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country in which the respondent resides, only that it can establish rights in some jurisdiction).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent’s <tarvelocity.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its TRAVELOCITY mark.  Respondent transposes the letters “r” and “a” in Complainant’s mark in the <tarvelocity.com> domain name.  Respondent also affixes the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name.  The Panel also finds transposing letters and adding a gTLD do not sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark  See Wyndham IP Corp. v. LaPorte Holdings, Inc., FA 373545 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 17, 2005) (finding the <wynhdam.com> and <wyandham.com> domain names to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s WYNDHAM mark because the domain names merely transposed letters in the mark); see also Google Inc. v. Jon G., FA 106084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2002) (finding <googel.com> to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s GOOGLE mark and noting that “[t]he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity, as the result reflects a very probable typographical error”); see also see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark).  Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s <tarvelocity.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRAVELOCITY mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant must first make a prima facie case showing Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <tarvelocity.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  The burden then shifts to Respondent to prove it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  The Panel may view Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests.  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 Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”).  Despite Respondent’s failure to respond, the Panel will evaluate the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).

 

Complainant avers Respondent is not sponsored by or legitimately affiliated with Complainant nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to use its TRAVELOCITY mark a domain name.  Additionally, the WHOIS information lists “Gioacchino Zerbo” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, which the Panel finds is not similar to the <tarvelocity.com> domain name.  Without evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under 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 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).

 

Complainant submits a screen shot of the website resolving from the <tarvelocity.com> domain name.  This image shows a directory website that lists hyperlinks to third-party websites offering travel services in competition with Complainant’s travel services.  The Panel presumes Respondent profits from its use of the <tarvelocity.com> domain name through the receipt of pay-per-click fees.  Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name to operate a directory website that provides links to Complainant’s competitors.  Accordingly, the Panel finds Respondent does not use the <tarvelocity.com> domain name to make 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).  See Royal Bank of Scotland Grp plc et al. v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (finding that the operation of a commercial web directory displaying various links to third-party websites was not 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), as the respondent presumably earned “click-through” fees for each consumer it redirected to other websites); see also Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that the respondent was not using the <tesco-finance.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by maintaining a web page with misleading links to the complainant’s competitors in the financial services industry).

 

The Panel finds that the <tarvelocity.com> domain name incorporates a common misspelling of Complainant’s TRAVELOCITY mark.  Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s <tarvelocity.com> domain name qualifies as typosquatting and that this behavior provides additional support that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  See 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’”); see also LTD Commodities LLC v. Party Night, Inc., FA 165155 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2003) (finding that the <ltdcommadities.com>, <ltdcommmodities.com>, and <ltdcommodaties.com> domain names were intentional misspellings of Complainant's LTD COMMODITIES mark and this “‘typosquatting’ is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names”).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant provides evidence that Respondent has been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings, wherein the disputed domain names were ordered to be transferred from Respondent to the respective complainants in those cases.   See CollegeNET, Inc. v. Gioacchino Zerbo, FA 1269200 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 28, 2009); see also GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Gioacchino Zerbo, FA 1220824 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 21, 2008); see also Rocky Brands, Inc. v. Gioacchino Zerbo, FA 1233952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2009).  Based on this evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use under the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).  See Arai Helmet Am., 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 Policy proceeding against the respondent to find that “this is part of a pattern of such registrations”); see also Westcoast Contempo Fashions Ltd. v. Manila Indus., Inc., FA 814312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been the subject of numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants).

 

The disputed domain name redirects Internet users seeking Complainant’s travel services to a directory website that provides links to third-parties that offer competing travel services.  Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s <tarvelocity.com> domain name disrupts Complainant’s business, which constitutes registration and use in bad faith under 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 Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent used the disputed domain name to operate a commercial search engine with links to the complainant’s competitors).

 

As previously discussed, the Panel finds the <tarvelocity.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRAVELOCITY mark.  Moreover, Respondent presumably profits from its use of the <tarvelocity.com> domain name through the receipt of pay-per-click fees.  The Panel finds Respondent has attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark.  Therefore, the Panel finds this behavior qualifies as bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites); see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. utahhealth, FA 697821 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).

 

Finally, the Panel determines that Respondent’s typosquatting is additional evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball League, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … is the intentional misspelling of words with [the] intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors.  Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.”); see also The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. IQ Mgmt. Corp., FA 328127 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 28, 2004) (“By engaging in typosquatting, [r]espondent has registered and used the <vangard.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <tarvelocity.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist

Dated:  October 12, 2010

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum