Travelocity.com LP v. Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited.
Claim Number: FA1204001438657
Complainant is Travelocity.com LP (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited. (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <travelocit.com>, registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com.
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.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 10, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 10, 2012.
On April 12, 2012, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <travelocit.com> domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On April 12, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 2, 2012 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@travelocit.com. Also on April 12, 2012, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 May 9, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <travelocit.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRAVELOCITY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <travelocit.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <travelocit.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Travelocity.com LP, markets travel products and services under its TRAVELOCITY and TRAVELOCITY.COM marks. Complainant owns trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its TRAVELOCITY mark (Reg. No. 2,254,700 registered June 22, 1999) and TRAVELOCITY.COM mark (Reg. No. 2,466,132 registered July 3, 2001).
Respondent, Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited., registered the <travelocit.com> domain name on July 2, 2004. Respondent uses the disputed domain name resolve to a website that Respondent uses to phish for personal information. Respondent lists the disputed domain name for sale on <sedo.com>.
Respondent has been a respondent in previous UDRP disputes in which the panels ordered the transfer of the disputed domain names to the respective complainants. See Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Venkateshwara Distrib. Private Ltd., FA 1361215 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 6, 2011); see also Enters. Holdings, Inc. v. Venkateshwara Distrib. Private Ltd., FA 1409674 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 28, 2011); see also GHC Specialty Brands, LLC v. Venkateshwara Distrib. Private Ltd., FA 1367041 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2011).
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."
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.
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.”).
As noted above, Complainant owns a trademark registration with the USPTO for both the TRAVELOCITY mark (Reg. No. 2,254,700 registered June 22, 1999) and the TRAVELOCITY.COM mark (Reg. No. 2,466,132 registered July 3, 2001). In Miller Brewing Co. v. Miller Family, FA 104177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 15, 2002) and Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007), the panels determined that a federal trademark registration was sufficient for the respective complainants to establish rights in the marks. Thus, the Panel concludes that Complainant owns rights in its TRAVELOCITY and TRAVELOCITY.COM marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent’s <travelocit.com> domain name contains a misspelled version of Complainant’s TRAVELOCITY.COM mark. The disputed domain name only differs from the mark by the removal of the letter “y.” In Pfizer Inc. v. BargainName.com, D2005-0299 (WIPO Apr. 28, 2005), and Hallelujah Acres, Inc. v. Manila Indus., Inc., FA 805029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 15, 2006), the panels held that a disputed domain name that differs from a complainant’s mark by one letter is confusingly similar to the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel agrees with this precedent and concludes that Respondent’s <travelocit.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRAVELOCITY.COM mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <travelocit.com> domain name. In Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006), the panel held that the burden shifts to the respondent to prove it does have rights or legitimate interests when the complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). In this case, the Panel finds Complainant made a sufficient prima facie case. In Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000), the panel held that a respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint allows the Panel to infer that a respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. However, this Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Respondent did not present the Panel with any evidence that it is commonly known by the <travelocit.com> domain name. Based on the Complaint, the Panel notes that Respondent is not sponsored by, or legitimately affiliated with, Complainant and that Complainant did not grant Respondent permission to use Complainant’s TRAVELOCITY and TRAVELOCITY.COM marks. The WHOIS information identifies “Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, which also indicates that Respondent is not commonly known by the <travelocit.com> domain name. Previous panels, in Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) and M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006), concluded that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information and the evidence in the record does not support such a finding. Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <travelocit.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent’s <travelocit.com> domain name resolves to a website that tells Internet users they can claim a free $1,000 gift card for Complainant’s business. After entering an e-mail address and clicking “CONTINUE,” Internet users are redirected to a second webpage that requires Internet users to input their names, addresses, birth dates, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers. The Panel determines that Respondent is using the <travelocit.com> domain name in order to phish for Internet users’ personal information. In Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Nelson, FA 241972 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 29, 2004), and Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 690796 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2006), the panels found that a respondent’s use of a disputed domain name for phishing is not a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees and finds accordingly.
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent lists the <travelocit.com> domain name for sale on <sedo.com>. In Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003), and Am. Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2000), the panels concluded that a general offer to sell a disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Panel determines that Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name indicates that Respondent registered and uses the <travelocit.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
Respondent has been a respondent in previous UDRP disputes in which the panels ordered the transfer of the disputed domain names to the respective complainants. See Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Venkateshwara Distrib. Private Ltd., FA 1361215 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 6, 2011); see also Enters. Holdings, Inc. v. Venkateshwara Distrib. Private Ltd., FA 1409674 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 28, 2011); see also GHC Specialty Brands, LLC v. Venkateshwara Distrib. Private Ltd., FA 1367041 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2011). While Complainant also argues that Respondent owns domain names that contain the marks of third parties, the Panel chooses to ignore these third-party domain names because they are not a part of this dispute and a UDRP panel has not analyzed the domain names under the Policy. In Westcoast Contempo Fashions Ltd. v. Manila Indus., Inc., FA 814312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2006), and Nat’l Abortion Fed’n v. Dom 4 Sale, Inc., FA 170643 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 9, 2003), the panels held that prior UDRP disputes involving the respondent indicate that the respondent registered and uses the current disputed domain name in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent registered and uses the <travelocit.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Respondent’s <travelocit.com> domain name resolves to a website that Respondent uses to attempt to acquire the personal information of Internet users. As noted under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the Panel determines that Respondent’s actions constitute phishing. In Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 19, 2006), and Hess Corp. v. GR, FA 770909 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2006), the panels held that registering and using a disputed domain name as a part of a phishing scheme demonstrates bad faith registration and use. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent is guilty of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith registration and use of the <travelocit.com> domain name.
Respondent’s <travelocit.com> domain name differs from Complainant’s TRAVELOCITY.COM mark by one letter, which indicates that Respondent is attempting to take advantage of Internet users’ mistakes when attempting to reach Complainant online. The Panel determines that Respondent is guilty of typosquatting. In Canadian Tire Corp. v. domain adm’r no.valid.email@worldnic.net 1111111111, D2003-0232 (WIPO May 22, 2003), and Nextel Commc’ns Inc. v. Geer, FA 477183 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 15, 2005), the panels found that typosquatting was evidence of bad faith registration and use. Consequently, the Panel again finds that Respondent registered and uses the <travelocit.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
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 <travelocit.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 17, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page