Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Wayne Dyer / None
Claim Number: FA1401001541857
Complainant is Orbitz Worldwide, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Wayne Dyer / None (“Respondent”), Sweden.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chaptickets.com>, registered with BigRock Solutions Ltd.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 31, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on January 31, 2014.
On February 3, 2014, BigRock Solutions Ltd confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <chaptickets.com> domain name is registered with BigRock Solutions Ltd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. BigRock Solutions Ltd has verified that Respondent is bound by the BigRock Solutions Ltd 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 4, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 24, 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@chaptickets.com. Also on February 4, 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 4, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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
Complainant is a global online travel company. Among Complainant’s consumer brands is CheapTickets, a leading U.S. travel website that offers customers the ability to search for and book a broad range of travel products and services. CheapTickets’ website was launched in 1997. In 2011, Complainant spent $242 million on advertising and promotion of its brands. Complainant (apparently through a subsidiary) owns various U.S. trademark registrations including CHEAP TICKETS and CHEAPTICKETS.COM. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name, <chaptickets.com>, is confusingly similar to these marks, and that the domain name represents a classic example of “typosquatting.”
Complainant further contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In support thereof, Complainant states (inter alia) that Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name; that Respondent is not sponsored by or legitimately affiliated with Complainant; that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a website containing generic links to third-party websites, some of which compete directly with Complainant, and presumably is profiting thereby; that Respondent registered the domain name in or after 2000, long after Complainant acquired the relevant trademark rights; and that Respondent has listed the disputed domain name for sale.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
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.”).
The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s registered trademark CHEAPTICKETS.COM, but for the omission of a letter “e”. The introduction of such a minor typographical error does not significantly distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., Société Anonyme des Galeries Lafayette v. Domain Dotter, Elia Tan, D2013-2233 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2014) (finding <galrieslafayette.com> confusingly similar to GALERIES LAFAYETTE). The Panel concludes that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name is a typographical variation on Complainant’s mark, and its apparent sole use has been for a website consisting of links to third-party sites that compete directly with Complainant. See, e.g., Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Global Access / domain admin, FA 1536870 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2014) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests in similar circumstances). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name “primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.” Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that “by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent’s] web site or location.”
Respondent’s registration of a domain name that is nearly identical to Complainant’s mark, together with the use of that domain name to link to commercial websites that compete with Complainant, is indicative of bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). See, e.g., Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Global Access / domain admin, supra. The Panel so finds.
Having considered the elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <chaptickets.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: March 5, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page