national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Priceline.com, Inc. v. Alichec Inc., a/k/a Alex Ovechkin, a/k/a Crystal Image Pty Ltd, a/k/a David Ghou, a/k/a Denesh Kumar, a/k/a Denholm Borg, a/k/a Elarson & Associates Pty Ltd, a/k/a Liquid SEO Limited, a/k/a Loshedina Inc, a/k/a Luchichang Pty Ltd, a/k/a Netmilo, a/k/a Oleg Techino, a/k/a Orel Hlasek LLC, a/k/a Vlad Obchikov, a/k/a Volchar Pty Ltd, a/k/a Web Pescados LLC, a/k/a Webatopia Marketing Limited, a/k/a Lidnick Webcorp, Inc. a/k/a WuWeb Pty Ltd

Claim Number: FA1208001456778

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Priceline.com, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA.  Respondent is Alichec Inc., a/k/a Alex Ovechkin, a/k/a Crystal Image Pty Ltd, a/k/a David Ghou, a/k/a Denesh Kumar, a/k/a Denholm Borg, a/k/a Elarson & Associates Pty Ltd, a/k/a Liquid SEO Limited, a/k/a Loshedina Inc, a/k/a Luchichang Pty Ltd, a/k/a Netmilo, a/k/a Oleg Techino, a/k/a Orel Hlasek LLC, a/k/a Vlad Obchikov, a/k/a Volchar Pty Ltd, a/k/a Web Pescados LLC, a/k/a Webatopia Marketing Limited, a/k/a Lidnick

Webcorp, Inc. a/k/a WuWeb Pty Ltd (“Respondent”).

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <prkceline.com>, <prjceline.com>, <prifeline.com>, <pricepine.com>, <priceoine.com>, <pricelkne.com>, <priceljne.com>, <pricelini.com>, <pricelin4.com>, <pricelin3.com>, <pricelije.com>, <pricelene.com>, <pricel9ne.com>, <pric4line.com>, <pr9celine.com>, <pficeline.com>, <pdiceline.com>, <p5iceline.com>, and <0riceline.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, Llc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 6, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on August 6, 2012.

 

On August 8, 2012, Godaddy.com, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <prkceline.com>, <prjceline.com>, <prifeline.com>, <pricepine.com>, <priceoine.com>, <pricelkne.com>, <priceljne.com>, <pricelini.com>, <pricelin4.com>, <pricelin3.com>, <pricelije.com>, <pricelene.com>, <pricel9ne.com>, <pric4line.com>, <pr9celine.com>, <pficeline.com>, <pdiceline.com>, <p5iceline.com>, and <0riceline.com> domain names are registered with Godaddy.com, Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Godaddy.com, Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, Llc 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 August 14, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 4, 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@prkceline.com, postmaster@prjceline.com, postmaster@prifeline.com, postmaster@pricepine.com, postmaster@priceoine.com, postmaster@pricelkne.com, postmaster@priceljne.com, postmaster@pricelini.com, postmaster@pricelin4.com, postmaster@pricelin3.com, postmaster@pricelije.com, postmaster@pricelene.com, postmaster@pricel9ne.com, postmaster@pric4line.com, postmaster@pr9celine.com, postmaster@pficeline.com, postmaster@pdiceline.com, postmaster@p5iceline.com, and postmaster@0riceline.com.  Also on August 14, 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 September 14, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

            A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.    Respondent’s <prkceline.com>, <prjceline.com>, <prifeline.com>, <pricepine.com>, <priceoine.com>, <pricelkne.com>, <priceljne.com>, <pricelini.com>, <pricelin4.com>, <pricelin3.com>, <pricelije.com>, <pricelene.com>, <pricel9ne.com>, <pric4line.com>, <pr9celine.com>, <pficeline.com>, <pdiceline.com>, <p5iceline.com>, and <0riceline.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s PRICELINE mark.

 

2.    Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <prkceline.com>, <prjceline.com>, <prifeline.com>, <pricepine.com>, <priceoine.com>, <pricelkne.com>, <priceljne.com>, <pricelini.com>, <pricelin4.com>, <pricelin3.com>, <pricelije.com>, <pricelene.com>, <pricel9ne.com>, <pric4line.com>, <pr9celine.com>, <pficeline.com>, <pdiceline.com>, <p5iceline.com>, and <0riceline.com> domain names.

 

3.    Respondent registered and used the <prkceline.com>, <prjceline.com>, <prifeline.com>, <pricepine.com>, <priceoine.com>, <pricelkne.com>, <priceljne.com>, <pricelini.com>, <pricelin4.com>, <pricelin3.com>, <pricelije.com>, <pricelene.com>, <pricel9ne.com>, <pric4line.com>, <pr9celine.com>, <pficeline.com>, <pdiceline.com>, <p5iceline.com>, and <0riceline.com> domain names in bad faith.

 

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

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns federal trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its PRICELINE mark (Reg. No. 2,272,659 registered August 24, 1999), as well as its PRICELINE.COM mark (Reg. No. 2,481,112 registered August 28, 2001).  Complainant uses the PRICELINE mark for travel agency services worldwide.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain names on May 31, 2007.  The <prkceline.com>, <prjceline.com>, <prifeline.com>, <pricepine.com>, <priceoine.com>, <pricelkne.com>, <priceljne.com>, <pricelini.com>,  <pricelije.com>, <pricelene.com>, <pricel9ne.com>, <pric4line.com>, <pr9celine.com>, <pficeline.com>, <pdiceline.com>, <p5iceline.com>, and <0riceline.com> domain names resolve to Complainant’s website through Complainant’s affiliate program in violation of an affiliate agreement between the parties.  The <pricelin4.com> and <pricelin3.com> domain names resolve to a webpage with no content.

 

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."

 

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.”).

 

Preliminary Issue:  Multiple Respondents

 

In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities that control the domain names at issue are effectively the same person and/or entity, operating under several aliases.  Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”  Complainant supports its allegation by providing evidence of the following:

 

1)    the 19 Respondents share the same name as the respondent in another National Arbitration Forum case, FA1337664;

2)    the disputed domain names are all registered with the same registrar, GoDaddy.com, Inc. and were registered on the same date (May 31, 2007);

3)    the method of creating revenue for 17 of the domain names is nearly identical;

4)    the “traffic forwarding mechanism” for 17 of the domain names is provided by the same entity, allowing Respondent to hide the traffic’s origin in an attempt to prevent detection of fraudulent activity; and

5)    the disputed domain names are all typosquatted versions of Complainant’s PRICELINE mark and <priceline.com> domain name.

                                          

In the absence of any information to the contrary, the Panel accepts Complainant’s evidence and finds that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same entity.  Therefore, the Respondents will be collectively referred to as “Respondent.”

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated rights in its PRICELINE and PRICELINE.COM marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registrations with the USPTO.  See Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Santos, FA 565685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 21, 2005) (finding trademark registration with the USPTO was adequate to establish rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).

 

Respondent’s <prkceline.com>, <prjceline.com>, <prifeline.com>, <pricepine.com>, <priceoine.com>, <pricelkne.com>, <priceljne.com>, <pricelini.com>, <pricelin4.com>, <pricelin3.com>, <pricelije.com>, <pricelene.com>, <pricel9ne.com>, <pric4line.com>, <pr9celine.com>, <pficeline.com>, <pdiceline.com>, <p5iceline.com>, and <0riceline.com> domain names each remove one letter of the PRICELINE.COM mark and replace it with a different letter or number.  The panel in Belkin Components v. Gallant, FA 97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2001), found the <belken.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s BELKIN mark because the domain name replaced the letter “i” in the mark with the letter “e.”  Further, prior UDRP panels have found that replacing a letter of a mark with a number does not distinguish a domain name from a complainant’s mark.  See Oxygen Media, LLC v. Primary Source, D2000-0362 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that the domain name <0xygen.com>, with zero in place of letter “O,” “appears calculated to trade on Complainant’s name by exploiting likely mistake by users when entering the URL address”).   The Panel here concludes that the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.  See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light.  If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names, as demonstrated by the WHOIS information associated with each of the domain names.  Complainant further argues that Respondent lacks permission to register domain names using Complainant’s mark and is not affiliated with Complainant in any way.  The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of the <pricelin4.com> and <pricelin3.com> domain names constitutes inactive use because both domain names resolve to blank webpages.  Complainant argues that, by failing to actively use the <pricelin4.com> and <pricelin3.com> domain names, Respondent demonstrates a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain names.  The panel in Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2004), stated that respondent’s appropriation of the complainant’s mark in a domain name to host an inactive website was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.  The Panel agrees and finds that, by failing to make active use of the <pricelin4.com> and <pricelin3.com> domain names, Respondent is not using the domain names in a manner demonstrating 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).

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent’s use of the <prkceline.com>, <prjceline.com>, <prifeline.com>, <pricepine.com>, <priceoine.com>, <pricelkne.com>, <priceljne.com>, <pricelini.com>,  <pricelije.com>, <pricelene.com>, <pricel9ne.com>, <pric4line.com>, <pr9celine.com>, <pficeline.com>, <pdiceline.com>, <p5iceline.com>, and <0riceline.com> domain names does not give rise to Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because each of the domain names resolve to Complainant’s own website. Complainant alleges that Respondent fraudulently earns income when a customer makes a purchase after accidentally visiting one of the above-mentioned domain names, which Complainant contends violates the “contractual affiliate agreement” between Complainant and Respondent.  The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) of the above-mentioned domain names.  See Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Jablome, FA 124861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4, 2002) (by signing up for the complainant’s affiliate program upon registering the domain name, which was a misspelling of the complainant’s mark, the respondent intended to use the domain name to generate profit at the complainant’s expense, thereby evidencing a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii)).

 

Complainant further argues that Respondent’s registration of the <prkceline.com>, <prjceline.com>, <prifeline.com>, <pricepine.com>, <priceoine.com>, <pricelkne.com>, <priceljne.com>, <pricelini.com>, <pricelin4.com>, <pricelin3.com>, <pricelije.com>, <pricelene.com>, <pricel9ne.com>, <pric4line.com>, <pr9celine.com>, <pficeline.com>, <pdiceline.com>, <p5iceline.com>, and <0riceline.com> domain names is evidence of typosquatting to capitalize on misspellings of Complainant’s PRICELINE.COM mark, with only one letter different from the mark in each of the domain names.  The panel in IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2003), held that the respondent did not possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it engaged in typosquatting by taking advantage of common typing errors associated with the complainant’s mark.  The Panel finds that Respondent demonstrates typosquatting by registering domain names that are obvious misspellings of Complainant’s PRICELINE.COM mark and therefore lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent is a “recalcitrant, serial cybersquatter / typosquatter.”  Complainant notes several prior UDRP cases in which many respondents were identified and in which the domain names were ordered to be transferred from those respondents to the respective complainants.  The Panel notes that some of the listed respondents in those prior cases are the same respondents as in this case.  Further, the Panel notes that the current domain names were all registered on the same day.  Therefore, the Panel finds that this is evidence of a bad faith pattern of registering domain names containing others’ marks, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).  See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bin g Glu, FA 1036129 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2007) (holding prior UDRP proceedings were sufficient evidence of a pattern of bad faith registrations); see also Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that one instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).

 

Respondent’s <prkceline.com>, <prjceline.com>, <prifeline.com>, <pricepine.com>, <priceoine.com>, <pricelkne.com>, <priceljne.com>, <pricelini.com>,  <pricelije.com>, <pricelene.com>, <pricel9ne.com>, <pric4line.com>, <pr9celine.com>, <pficeline.com>, <pdiceline.com>, <p5iceline.com>, and <0riceline.com> domain names resolve to Complainant’s website in violation of Complainant’s affiliate agreement.  Complainant argues that Respondent profits from such use through the affiliate agreement and that such use is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use.  The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use of the <prkceline.com>, <prjceline.com>, <prifeline.com>, <pricepine.com>, <priceoine.com>, <pricelkne.com>, <priceljne.com>, <pricelini.com>,  <pricelije.com>, <pricelene.com>, <pricel9ne.com>, <pric4line.com>, <pr9celine.com>, <pficeline.com>, <pdiceline.com>, <p5iceline.com>, and <0riceline.com> domain names is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Deluxe Corp. v. Dallas Internet, FA 105216 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (finding the respondent registered and used the <deluxeform.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by redirecting its users to the complainant’s <deluxeforms.com> domain name, thus receiving a commission from the complainant through its affiliate program).

 

Respondent’s <pricelin4.com> and <pricelin3.com> domain names do not resolve to active websites, evidence that they were registered and are being used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

 

Respondent’s bad faith is further exemplified by the registration and use of the disputed domain names containing obvious misspellings.  Typosquatting is an indication of bad faith under 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)).

 

The Panel finds that 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 <prkceline.com>, <prjceline.com>, <prifeline.com>, <pricepine.com>, <priceoine.com>, <pricelkne.com>, <priceljne.com>, <pricelini.com>, <pricelin4.com>, <pricelin3.com>, <pricelije.com>, <pricelene.com>, <pricel9ne.com>, <pric4line.com>, <pr9celine.com>, <pficeline.com>, <pdiceline.com>, <p5iceline.com>, and <0riceline.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated:  September 15, 2012

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page