national arbitration forum

DECISION

Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Kim Bum / No company

Claim Number: FA1401001538678

PARTIES

Complainant is Orbitz Worldwide, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Kim Bum / No company (“Respondent”), Australia.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <cheadtickets.com>, <cheaptiackets.com>, <cheapticketcs.com>, and <rorbitz.com>, registered with Registermatrix.Com Corp..

PANEL

The undersigned certifies he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 10, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on January 10, 2014.

On January 28, 2014, Registermatrix.Com Corp. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <cheadtickets.com>, <cheaptiackets.com>, <cheapticketcs.com>, and <rorbitz.com> domain names are registered with Registermatrix.Com Corp. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Registermatrix.Com Corp. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Registermatrix.Com Corp. 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 February 24, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 17, 2014 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@cheadtickets.com, postmaster@cheaptiackets.com, postmaster@cheapticketcs.com, and postmaster@rorbitz.com. Also on February 24, 2014, 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 March 21, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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

Complainant's Mark, CHEAP TICKETS:

[i.] CHEAP TICKETS - Federal registration for " travel agency services, namely, arranging travel packages; making reservations and bookings for transportation; travel booking agencies; and travel information services" (U.S. Reg. No. 2,021,749);

[ii.] CHEAPTICKETS.COM - Federal registration for "travel agency services, namely, making travel arrangements; making reservations and bookings for transportation; travel information services" (U.S. Reg. No. 2,665,841);

[iii.] CHEAP TICKETS INC. - Federal registration for "travel agency services, namely, making reservations and bookings for temporary lodging" (U.S. Reg. No. 3,750,940);

Complainant's Mark, ORBITZ:

[i.] ORBITZ - Federal registration for "Travel agency services, namely, making reservations and bookings for transportation; providing information concerning travel, travel news and travel-related topics via electronic communications networks" (U.S. Reg. No. 2,799,051);

[ii.] ORBITZ- Federal registration for "Providing on-line chat rooms and on-line bulletin boards for transmission of messages among computer users concerning travel; providing access to an interactive computer database in the field of travel information, transportation by air, train, bus or boat, musical events, theatrical events, live dramatic events, films, sporting events, dining, art exhibitions, ground traffic, parking, shopping and destination information"(U.S. Reg. No. 2,858,685);

[iii.] ORBITZ.COM - Federal registration for "Travel agency services, namely, making reservations and bookings for transportation; providing information concerning travel, travel news and travel-related topics via electronic communications networks (U.S. Reg. No. 2,951,983);

Complainant is the owner of numerous federal trademark registrations in the United States that consist of or include the terms “Cheap Tickets” and “Orbitz”. These registrations are collectively referred to hereafter as the “Complainant’s Marks” or “Marks.”

1. FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS
This Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds:

ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, LLC is a leading global online travel company that uses innovative technology to enable leisure and business travelers to research, plan and book a broad range of travel products. Orbitz Worldwide, LLC owns various subsidiaries (collectively “Orbitz”) and a portfolio of consumer brands that includes Orbitz (orbitz.com), Cheap Tickets (cheaptickets.com), ebookers (ebookers.com), HotelClub (hotelclub.com), RatesToGo (ratestogo.com), the Away Network (away.com) and corporate travel brand Orbitz for Business.

Orbitz was originally formed by a group of leading U.S. airlines in 1999 to participate in the rapidly growing online travel industry. Originally, the airline investors in Orbitz consisted of American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Northwest Airlines and United Air Lines. Since launching its website in 2001, Orbitz became one of the travel industry market leaders within the United States. According to PhoCusWright, an independent travel, tourism and hospitality research firm, the online travel booking penetration rate in the United States was nearly 60% in 2011, in addition to, travel booking penetration rates reaching almost 40% for Europe and 20% for Asia Pacific.

Orbitz was acquired by Cendant Corporation (now Travelport Inc.) in 2004 and assumed responsibility for Cendant's domestic online travel business, which included Cheap Tickets, a leading online travel brand focused on the value-conscious traveler, and for Flairview Travel, which operated the international online hotel websites HotelClub.com and RatesToGo.com. In February 2005, Cendant acquired ebookers, a leading international online travel brand with an online presence in 13 countries in Europe. Orbitz Worldwide, LLC was formed through the combination of Orbitz Inc. and the online travel assets of Cendant's travel distribution services division and became a public company in July 2007. Currently Orbitz Worldwide, LLC employs over 1,600 employees in over 20 countries.

The website orbitz.com, registered November 18, 1999, is widely used and recognized by consumers has also won awards and recognition. For instance, Orbitz.com was named the “Best Website for Booking Travel” in 2006 and the winner of the 2008 Budget Travel Extra Mile Award.

In August 2011, Orbitz announced that its one-of-a-kind, Price Assurance cash refund program hit the $10 million mark since the program's inception in June 2008. More than 170,000 Price Assurance refund checks totaling $10 million in refunds had been issued to customers, confirming the Price Assurance promise that Orbitz customers will always get the lowest Orbitz price. In addition, in 2012, Orbitz Worldwide re-launched the popular Orbitz Flights, Hotels, Cars, for iPhone app adding major speed improvements, powerful sort and filtering capabilities and new mapping tools that better highlight the exclusive, mobile-only hotel discounts. The completely rebuilt Orbitz app is the only fully native, streamlined in-app search and book experience for flights, hotel rooms and car rentals.

According to the Complainant’s financial earnings report for 2011, the Complainant reported $767 million in revenue. On August 8, 2012, Orbitz Worldwide reported its second quarter earnings as of June 30, 2012. Within the European region, Orbitz grew room nights 3%, consistent with the first quarter, led by 28% growth at ebookers. The US distribution business grew room nights 19% ahead of planned launch of the American Express Consumer Travel Network partnership. Orbitz Worldwide continues to see very strong growth in upcoming quarters due to the implementation of apps for smartphones and tablets.

CheapTickets (www.cheaptickets.com) is a leading U.S. travel website that focuses on value-conscious customers. CheapTickets offers customers the ability to search for and book a broad range of travel products and services, including air travel, hotels, car rentals, cruises, travel insurance and destination services, from suppliers worldwide on a stand-alone basis or as part of a vacation package. Customers can also book travel products from their mobile devices through a mobile website (m.cheaptickets.com). In addition, CheapTickets offers value-oriented promotions such as Members Only Prices flash sales and Cheap of the Week®, which provide customers with special travel offers on a weekly basis.

Trip Network, Inc. d/b/a CheapTickets, founded in 1986, started in Honolulu Hawaii with 3000 tickets from Mid Pacific Air. Tickets advertised in the newspaper classified ads sold out in 2 weeks. Based on this success, CheapTickets grew into an airline ticket consolidator reselling discounted tickets lower than the normal published airfares. After opening call centers and launching its website in 1997, CheapTickets became a pioneer in internet travel sales. Acquired by Cendant in 2000, the brand is owned and operated by Orbitz Worldwide, LLC.

In 2011 alone, Orbitz Worldwide, LLC has spent $242M dollars in advertisement and promotion of the Marks and all of its brands on television, print media and the Internet through its websites located at Orbitz.com and Cheaptickets.com. By utilizing a combination of online and traditional offline marketing, its sales and marketing efforts primarily focus on increasing brand awareness and driving visitors to its websites through search engine marketing (“SEM”), travel research websites, meta-search travel websites, display advertising, affiliate programs and email marketing. Orbitz continues to pursue strategies to improve its online marketing efficiency.

Orbitz Worldwide, LLC owns the Marks cited in Section 4(c) above for which it has obtained federal trademark registrations. These federal trademark registrations are valid and subsisting and all but one have become incontestable through the filing of Section 8 and 15 affidavits with the USPTO. Based on its federal trademark registrations and extensive use, Orbitz Worldwide, LLC owns the exclusive right to use the Marks, “Cheap Tickets” and “Orbitz”, in connection with travel agency and related services.

[a.]

The Disputed Domain Names are nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's Marks.

i.	By virtue of its federal trademark and/or service mark registrations, Complainant is the owner of the Complainant's Marks. See, e.g., United Way of America v. Alex Zingaus, NAF Claim No. FA0707001036202 ("Panels have long recognized Complainant's registration of a mark with a trademark authority is sufficient to confer rights in the mark pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i)"). As in other cases, it is also important to note that it is irrelevant for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i) whether Complainant registered the mark in the country where Respondent operates or resides. See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that a mark be registered in the country in which a respondent operates, it being sufficient that a complainant can demonstrate rights in a mark in some jurisdiction).
ii.	When comparing the Disputed Domain Names to the Complainant's Marks, the relevant comparison to be made is between only the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Names)and the Complainant's Marks. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, WIPO Case No.D2000-0429 (finding that the top-level domain, such as ".net" or ".com", does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., NAF Claim No. FA0304000153545 ("[t]he addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.")
iii.	The Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's Marks because they differ by only a single character from Complainant's Marks, or because it differs by only the juxtaposition of two characters when compared to Complainant's Marks. For clarification, the Disputed Domain Names contains either: [i.] the addition of one extra character, or... [ii.] the removal of one character, or... [iii.] one character which is incorrect, or... [iv.] two juxtaposed characters as compared to Complainant's Marks.
iv.	The Disputed Domain Names are, simply put, a classic example of "typosquatting". The practice of typosquatting is designed to take advantage of Internet users' typographical errors, which means the names must be confusingly similar by design. See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0441 (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive); Caterpillar Inc. v. Center for Ban on Drugs, NAF Claim No. FA0603000661437 ("the omission of a single letter from Complainant's mark does not adequately distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the mark"); and Victoria's Secret v. Zuccarini, NAF Claim No. FA0010000095762 (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's marks).

[b.]

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names for the following reasons:

ii.

iii.

Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names. Upon information and belief, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Names, it had no trademark or intellectual property rights in the Domain Names. See Policy, ¶4(c)(ii). Where, as here, "the WHOIS information suggests Respondent is known as" an entity other than the trademark associated with Complainant, and Complainant has not "licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to register domain names incorporating Complainant's... mark," a Panel should find that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. See United Way of America v. Alex Zingaus, NAF Claim No. FA0707001036202. See also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy, ¶4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"); See also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that when a respondent was not known by a mark it did not have rights in a domain name incorporating that mark).

Respondent is not sponsored by or legitimately affiliated with Complainant in any way.

Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant's Mark in a domain name or in any other manner. See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding that a respondent had no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name where it was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission to use the mark).

iv.	A "Cease and Desist" letter was sent to the Respondent prior to the filing of this action. The letter informed the Respondent that it was infringing on Complainant's IP rights and allowed the Respondent the opportunity to respond if they have any IP rights. The Respondent was provided with the information of the Complainant's trademarks, hence showing proof that the Complainant has rights to the brands. To date, no reply has been received from Respondent. 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, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000("In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint."). Also in WIPO case ACCOR v. Pham Manh Ha, Case No. D2007-1855, the panel found that the evidentiary burden therefore shifts to the Respondent to show by concrete evidence that it does have rights or legitimate interests in that name.
v.	Respondent has ignored Complainant's attempts to resolve the dispute outside of this administrative proceeding. Complainant notes that if the owner of the Disputed Domain Names fails to respond to this Complaint, it is presumed that the owner has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. See Mattel, Inc. v. Rave Club Berlin, FA106115 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2002), citing Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents' failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names). Further, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) states that when "the complainant has made a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to show by providing concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interest in the domain name at issue."
vi.	Respondent is using some of the Disputed Domain Names to redirect unsuspecting Internet users to a website featuring generic links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant's business. Presumably, Respondent receives pay-per-click fees from these linked websites. As such, Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Names to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services as allowed under Policy; 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as allowed under Policy; 4(c)(iii). See 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. 24HourNames.com-Quality Domains For Sale, FA 187429 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 26, 2003) (holding that Respondent's use of the 24hrsfitness.comgt, 24-hourfitness.com.gt and 24hoursfitness.com.gt, domain names to redirect Internet users to a website featuring advertisements and links to Complainant's competitors could not be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also Computer Doctor Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Computer Doctor, FA 95396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the respondent's website, which is blank but for links to other websites, is not a legitimate use of the domain names).

As it pertains to the CHEAP TICKETS Mark:

vii.

The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names was November 27, 2004, which is significantly after Complainant's first use in commerce, November 1, 1986, as specified in their relevant registration with the USPTO.

viii.

ix.

The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names was November 27, 2004, which is significantly after Complainant's registration of their relevant Marks with the USPTO on December 10, 1996.

The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names was November 27, 2004, which is significantly after Complainant's registration of CHEAPTICKETS.COM on June 17, 1998.

As it pertains to the ORBITZ Mark:

xi.

xii.

The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name was February 10, 2005, which is significantly after Complainant's first use in commerce, June 4, 2001, as specified in their relevant registration with the USPTO.

The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name was
February 10, 2005, which is significantly after Complainant's registration of their relevant Marks with the USPTO on December 23, 2003.

The earliest date on which Respondent registered an “ORBITZ” Disputed Domain Name was February 10, 2005, which is significantly after Complainant's registration of ORBITZ.COM on November 18, 1999.

[c.]

The Domain Names should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith for the following reasons:

Respondent's typosquatting behavior is, in and of itself, evidence of bad faith. See Canadian Tire Corp. v. domain adm'r no.valid.email@worldnic.net 1111111111, D2003-0232 (WIPO May 22, 2003) (finding the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith because the respondent created a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's web site or location'.. . through Respondent's persistent practice of 'typosquatting'"); see also 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.").

ii.

iii.

iv.

Respondent's bad faith is further shown by the Respondent using the Disputed Domain Names website in connection with generating revenue as a "click through" website, by using the Complainant's registered trademarks and providing links to the services and products offered by the Complainant to take advantage of Complainant's well known mark to achieve a wrongful competitive advantage and commercial gain. In WIPO Decision D2008-1470, AIDA Cruises German Branch of Societa di Crociere Mercurio S.r.l., v. Caribbean Online International Ltd. / Belgium Domains "the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name for the purposes of commercial gain by offering links to other companies' websites related to cruises and travels, in the form of a "clickthrough" website. In similar cases, many prior panel decisions have recognised [sic] that the registration of domain names to be used in a "click-through" website has to be considered as an evidence of bad faith (see, e.g. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation., WIPO Case No. D2007-0440; Early Times Distillers Company v. IP Admin / DNAV ASSOCS, WIPO Case No. D2007-1812; HBOS Plc v. Whois Protection, WIPO Case No. D2007-1605)".

To further stress the above, Respondent’s setting up of a “click through” website for which it likely receives revenue for each misdirected Internet user obviously demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith. The Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv) by using the Disputed Domain Names to attract and mislead consumers for its own profit. 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 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). See also Meadowbrook, L.L.C. d/b/a The Land of Nod v. Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited, Claim Number: FA1112001419361 and Charlotte Russe Merchandising, Inc. v. Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft / Domain Admin, Claim Number: FA1204001439309, where the same behavior of bad faith is demonstrated and agreed by the panel, pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).

In addition to the above, the Respondent’s advertised pay-per-click links displayed on the resolving websites promotes products that compete with Complainant. These links therefore divert potential customers away from Complainant to third-party websites, which disrupts Complainant’s business. The Panel should find that this effort to divert consumers and disrupt Complainant’s business is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iii). See Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assoc., FA 914854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (holding that where the respondent’s website featured hyperlinks to competing websites and included a link to the complainant’s website, the respondent’s use of the <redeemaamiles.com> domain name constituted disruption under Policy ¶4(b)(iii)).

The Respondent has also listed (some or all of) the Disputed Domain names for sale. As shown in WIPO Decision D2001-1066, Trip.com, Inc. v. Daniel Deamone, "A fourth factor is that Respondent has offered the Domain Name for sale to the public. There is nothing inherently wrongful in the offer or sale of domain names, without more, such as to justify a finding of bad faith under the Policy. However, the fact that domain name registrants may legitimately and in good faith sell domain names does not imply a right in such registrants to sell domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks of others without their consent. Although Respondent's offer of the Disputed Domain Names for sale was not made specifically to Complainant or its competitor, offers for sale to the public may nevertheless constitute evidence of bad faith under the Policy." The offering for sale of a domain name, even to a third party, supports bad faith. See Policy, Paragraph 4(b); Sporty's Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman's Market, Inc., 202 F.3d 489 (2d Cir. 2000); Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Spencer, 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000); Morrison & Foerster LLP v. Wick, 94 F. Supp.2d 1125 (D. Colo. 2000). See also WIPO Case No. D2003-0689, Mr. Donning Eric v. Mr. Nyunhwa Jung,..."The posting of the announcement: "This domain is for SALE!" constitutes satisfactory evidence, when combined with the Respondent's lack of legitimate rights to or interests in the domain name, that the Respondent's primary purpose in registering the domain name was to sell it in contravention of the Policy (EFG Bank European Financial Group SA v. Jacob Foundation, WIPO Case No. D2000-0036).

vi.

Respondent has caused the websites reachable by some of the Disputed Domain Names to display Complainant's Marks spelled correctly (even though the domain names are a misspelled version of the same marks). This serves as further evidence of bad faith intent because it removes any doubt as to whether or not the misspelling was intentionally designed to improperly capitalize on Complainant's famous Marks.

vii.

Respondent has caused the websites reachable by some of the Disputed Domain Names to display content and/or keywords directly related to Complainant's business. This serves as further evidence of bad faith intent because it removes any doubt as to whether or not the misspelling was intentionally designed to improperly capitalize on Complainant's famous Mark and its related business.

viii.

ix.

Respondent is a recalcitrant, serial cybersquatter / typosquatter. Searches through the NAF and WIPO UDRP decision databases reveal that Respondent has engaged in an ongoing pattern of such behavior. Previous panels have agreed that multiple prior UDRP decisions are sufficient evidence indicating a respondent’s bad faith use and registration. See TRAVELOCITY.COM LP v. Aziz, FA 1260783 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 16, 2009) (“These previous [UDRP] decisions demonstrate a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶4(b)(ii).”).

Respondent holds registrations on other domain names that appear to be straightforward examples of typosquatting. Although those names are not directly involved in this complaint, they serve as further evidence of bad faith intent on the part of Respondent. See Policy, 4(b)(ii) and Time Warner Inc. v. Zone MP3, NAF Claim No. FA0706001008035 (typosquatting combined with registration of as few as four domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to "protected marks" is sufficient to establish a pattern leading to bad faith). See also Citigroup Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, NAF Claim No. FA0704000964679.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

(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.

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 Complainant to prove the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:

(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.”).

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant owns the CHEAP TICKETS mark through its registration with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,021,749, registered December 10, 1996). Complainant also owns the ORBITZ mark through USTPO registration (Reg. No. 2,799,051, registered December 30, 2003). Complainant is a leading global online travel company and uses the CHEAP TICKETS and ORBITZ marks in connection with travel agency services. Complainant’s USPTO registrations are sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights in the CHEAP TICKETS and ORBITZ marks pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i), even though Respondent resides in Australia. See W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 24, 2010) (stating that “the Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [Policy ¶4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.”).

Complainant claims the <cheadtickets.com>, <cheaptiackets.com>, <cheapticketcs.com> disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the CHEAP TICKETS mark. The disputed domain names differ from the mark at issue by one letter, either by an incorrect character or by the addition of one extra character. Adding a gTLD, such as “.com”, is irrelevant for the purposes of this analysis because domain syntax requires a gTLD (or ccTLD). The disputed domain names <cheadtickets.com>, <cheaptiackets.com>, <cheapticketcs.com> differ from the CHEAP TICKETS mark because they eliminate the space separating the mark. The deletion of a space are not relevant to the Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis because spaces are not permitted characters in domain names. See Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i)). Complainant’s shorthand method of referring to this as a “typosquatting” case does not help in the analysis. While some typosquatting cases violate the Policy, not all typosquatting cases do. Complainant must prove the elements of its case.

Complainant claims the <rorbitz.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the ORBITZ mark. Once again, adding the gTLD “.com” and an extra letter to the mark in forming this domain name does not sufficiently differentiate it. The <rorbitz.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the ORBITZ mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Cargill, Incorporated v. Domain Privacy Grp., FA 1501652 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jul. 5, 2013) (determining that the disputed domain name, which contains the complainant’s mark, along with two generic terms and a generic top-level domain, is the equivalent of the mark itself for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i)).

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

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii). Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has 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.”).

Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain names. The WHOIS record now indicates that “Kim Bum / No company” is the registrant for all disputed domain names. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the marks at issue. Based upon the evidence in this case, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record).

Complainant claims Respondent is not using the disputed domain names to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain names each resolve to a website featuring generic links to third party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant’s business. Complainant’s screenshots show the resolving web pages promote links to “Cheap Airline Tickets” and other links related to air travel services. Respondent’s use of a domain name to promote links competing with Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy. See Expedia, Inc. v. Compaid, FA 520654 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <expediate.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to travel services that competed with the complainant was not 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)). Respondent is not using the disputed domain names to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) and (iii), respectively.

Finally Respondent registered the disputed domains using a privacy service. This means the legal owner of the disputed domain names didn’t control them. The undisclosed beneficial owner didn’t publicly associate its name with the disputed domain names, menacing it couldn’t acquire any rights in a commercial context.

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

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent has listed the disputed domain names for sale. Making a general offer for sale of a disputed domain name provides a basis for a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(i) if Respondent acquired the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of selling them. For example, in Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc’y v. “Infa dot Net” Web Serv., FA 95685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 6, 2000), the panel found that “general offers to sell the domain name, even if no certain price is demanded, are evidence of bad faith.” In the absence of any response from Respondent, this Panel finds the <cheadtickets.com>, <cheaptiackets.com>, <cheapticketcs.com>, and <rorbitz.com> domain names were registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(i).

Complainant further argues Respondent is a recalcitrant, serial typosquatter. To support this claim, Complainant points out that Respondent has been subject to previous UDRP decisions where panels found against Respondent. See Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc. v. Kim Bum LLC / Kim Bum, FA 1467301 (Nat. Arb. Forum November 27, 2012); see also W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Kim Bum LLC / Kim Bum, FA 1470241 (Nat. Arb. Forum December 26, 2012; see also The Boeing Co. v. Kim Bum, FA 1510222 (Nat. Arb. Forum August 30, 2013). Once again, this Panel remains unconvinced all forms of typosquatting ipso facto violate the Policy. The Policy does not prohibits all forms of typosquatting; just some. Each case will be judged on its merits, as long as Complainant has been able to reflect its marks in a domain name (which it has).

Complainant claims Respondent uses the disputed domain names to promote products and services competing with Complainant, which disrupts Complainant’s business. The resolving pages include hyperlinks to “Cheap Airline Tickets” and other links related to air travel services. Respondent gains click through revenue from the resolving pages. This is adequate evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iii). See Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. v. Bigfoot Ventures LLC, FA 1195961 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2008) (“Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a parking website which provides click through revenue to Respondent and which displays links to travel-related products and services that directly compete with Complainant’s business. Accordingly, Respondent’s competing use of the disputed domain name is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii).”).

Complainant also claims Respondent is attempting to attract and mislead Internet users for Respondent’s own profit. Specifically, Respondent uses Complainant’s marks in connection with a web page offering related travel services in an effort to take advantage of Complainant’s goodwill. Respondent receives “click through” revenue from the resolving pages. In Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003), the panel wrote, “Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’” This Panel finds Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv) by operating a confusingly similar website that promotes click-through links to services which compete with Complainant’s travel agency services.

Complainant sent Respondent a cease and desist letter (which Respondent ignored). While this might be important in showing Respondent is using the disputed domain names in bad faith, it doesn’t provide any support for the proposition Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith.

Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain names using a privacy service. In the commercial context, this raises the rebuttable presumption of bad faith registration and use. Respondent has done nothing to rebut that presumption. This fact alone justifies a finding of bad faith registration and use.

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

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered the <cheadtickets.com>, <cheaptiackets.com>, <cheapticketcs.com>, and <rorbitz.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist

Dated: Tuesday, April 1, 2014