Radisson Hotels International, Inc. v. Robert Wooroffe

Radisson Hotels International, Inc. v. Robert Wooroffe
Claim Number: FA1408001576649

Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.

[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Complainant has proved by documentary evidences that they are the registered owner of trademarks/service marks i.e., “RADISSON” AND “RADISSON BLU” under the category of Hotel, Bar and Restaurant Services, Services for the reservation of rooms. That apart, the Complainant themselves had registered the very same domain name <radission.com> and <radissonblu.com>. As noted, the Disputed domain Names <radisson.club> and <radissonblu.club> comprises of “radisson”, “radissonblu” and “.club”. The words “radisson” and “radissonblu” are identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s “RADISSON” and “RADISSOINBLU” trademarks/service marks. “.club” is a generic code top-level domain name (gTLD) suffix. It is non-distinctive and is incapable of differentiating the Disputed Domain Names from the Complainant’s registered trademarks/service marks. Based on the “RADISSON” and “RADISSOINBLU” being a registered trademarks/service marks of the Complainant, the Examiner finds that URS 1.2.6.1 (i) covers the domain name at issue in this case.

[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The fact that the Complainant’s adoption and first use of the registered trademarks/service marks predates the Respondent’s Disputed Domain Names has the practical effect of shifting the burden of proof to the Respondent in establishing that the Respondent has legitimate rights and/or interests in the Disputed Domain Names. Even though, the Respondent sent an email to NAF stating that he will file a response, the Respondent is in default and has not filed any Response within the time stipulated which default was also notified to the Respondent. Although, the Complainant is not entitled to relief simply by default of the Respondent to submit a Response, the Arbitral Tribunal can however and does draw evidentiary inferences from the failure of the Respondent to respond. The Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights and legitimate interest and the Respondent has failed to rebut the presumption of absence of rights or legitimate interests. Based on the record, the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Hence, the Examiner finds that URS 1.2.6.2 covers the domain names at issue in this case and that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain names.

[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’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 Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

It is well established that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names must involve malafides where the registration and use of it was and continues to be made in the full knowledge of the Complainant’s prior rights in the “RADISSON” and “RADISSOINBLU” trademarks/service marks, and in circumstances where the Respondent did not seek permission from the Complainant, as the owner of the trademarks/service marks, for such registration and use. The Examiner find due to the facts that (i) the Disputed domain Names are identical to the Complainant’s “RADISSON” and “RADISSOINBLU” trademarks/service marks and identical to the Complainant’s domain names being <radission.com> and <radissonblu.com>; (ii) the Respondent’s name does not correspond to the Disputed Domain Names; (iii) that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademarks/service marks when it registered the Disputed Domain Names; (iv) Respondent’s registration of Disputed Domain Name could be used to disrupt Complainant’s business; (v) there is no indication of any authorization to use the Complainant’s mark; and (vi) the Respondent himself offered to sell the domain names to the Complainant, it is lawful to infer that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and is being used in bad faith. Hence, the Examiner finds that URS 1.2.6.3 (a) covers the domain name at issue in this case and that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain names.

FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:

The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

DETERMINATION

After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

radisson.club
radissonblu.club

	Complainant Submitted: August 25, 2014
	Commencement: August 25, 2014
	Default Date: September 9, 2014
	Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").

	Complainant: Radisson Hotels International, Inc. Travis L Bachman of Minneapolis, MN, United States of America

	Respondent: Robert Wooroffe of London, London, II, UNITED KINGDOM

	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 Examiner in this proceeding.
	Saravanan Dhandapani, as Examiner

	Procedural Findings:
		Multiple Complainants: No multiple Complainants are involved in this proceeding. This Complaint and findings relate to the domain names <radisson.club> and <radissonblu.club>. No domain name is dismissed from this Complaint.
		Multiple Respondents: No multiple Respondents are involved in this proceeding. This Complaint and findings relate to the domain names <radisson.club> and <radissonblu.club>. No domain name is dismissed from this Complaint.

	Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC
	Registrars: GoDaddy.com, Inc.