HLT Domestic IP LLC v. Zhang Peng
Claim Number: FA0807001214866
Complainant is HLT Domestic IP LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Holly
S. Hawkins, of Alston & Bird LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <doubletreeresort.com>, registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On July
14, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
August 4, 2008
by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to
Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on
Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts,
and to postmaster@doubletreeresort.com by
e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
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." 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 <doubletreeresort.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DOUBLETREE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <doubletreeresort.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <doubletreeresort.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, HLT Domestic IP LLC is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Hilton Hotels Corporation.
Complainant owns and operates a number of the world’s best-known hotels
including: HILTON, WALDORF-ASTORIA, CONRAD HOTELS, DOUBLETREE, EMBASSY SUITES,
HAMPTON INN, and HOMEWOOD SUITES. Complainant
owns a number of trademark registrations with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the DOUBLETREE mark (i.e. Reg. No. 1,094,809
issued
Respondent registered the <doubletreeresort.com>
domain name
on
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 Complainant has established rights in
the DOUBLETREE mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark
registration with the USPTO. See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick,
FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <doubletreeresort.com> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s DOUBLETREE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s disputed domain name contains
Complainant’s mark in its entirety, adds the generic term “resort,” and adds
the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
The Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name creates a
confusing similarity as Respondent’s disputed domain name contains
Complainant’s mark and adds a generic term with an obvious relationship to
Complainant’s business. See Space Imaging LLC v.
Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing
similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark
with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s
business); see also Brambles
Indus. Ltd. v. Geelong Car Co. Pty. Ltd., D2000-1153 (WIPO Oct. 17, 2000)
(finding that the domain name <bramblesequipment.com> is confusingly
similar because the combination of the two words "brambles" and
"equipment" in the domain name implies that there is an association
with the complainant’s business). In addition,
the Panel finds that the addition of a gTLD fails to distinguish a disputed
domain name from a complainant’s registered mark. Nevada State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman
Web Dev., FA 204063 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the Panel finds
that Respondent’s <doubletreeresort.com> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s mark.
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks all rights and
legitimate interests in the <doubletreeresort.com>
domain
name. When Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its
allegations, the burden is shifted to Respondent to prove that it does have
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(ii). The Panel finds that in this
case, Complainant has established a prima
facie case. See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v.
Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO
Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the
Panel may assume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name. See CMGI,
Inc. v. Reyes, D2000-0572 (WIPO
Complainant asserts that Respondent is neither commonly
known by the disputed domain name, nor licensed to register domain names using
the DOUBLETREE mark. Respondent’s WHOIS
information identifies Respondent as “Zhang Peng,” and therefore lacks any
defining characteristics relating it to the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that without
affirmative evidence of being commonly known by the disputed domain name,
Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi,
FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant asserts that
Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name in order to attract
Internet users to a website containing third-party links to websites in
competition with Complainant. The Panel
finds that intentionally diverting unknowing Internet users to a confusingly
similar disputed domain name and offering links to competing websites is
neither a bona fide offering of goods
and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
See Bank of Am. Corp. v.
Northwest Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003)
(“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking
Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit
is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it
is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media
Insight, FA 198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the
respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of
goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the
respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website that offered
services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s use of the <doubletreeresort.com>
domain name
to offer links to third-party websites in competition with Complainant is
evidence of bad faith. The Panel finds
that a registered domain name used primarily to disrupt the business prospects
of a competitor is an illustration of bad faith registration and use pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO
Respondent’s use of the <doubletreeresort.com> domain name in order to intentionally attract Internet users to its website by creating a strong possiblity of confusion with Complainant’s DOUBLETREE mark and offering links to competing websites is further evidence of bad faith. Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), the Panel finds such use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use. See Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration by using domain names that were identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to redirect users to a website that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <saflock.com> domain name to offer goods competing with the complainant’s illustrates the respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
The Panel finds that ¶ 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 <doubletreeresort.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dated:
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum