Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The Complainant presents evidence that establishes that it owns the mark Holiday Inn, which is used to promote a very well known hotel chain. The disputed domain name consists of the mark plus a geographic term. The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complaint's mark, see Skype Ltd. & Gannett Co. v. Chan, D2004-0117 (WIPO Apr. 8, 2004) (“…it is well established that a domain name consisting of a well-known mark, combined with a geographically descriptive term or phrase, is confusingly similar to the mark.”)

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

From the evidence before it, the Examiner finds that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorize the Respondent to use its mark. And it finds that the Respondent is not commonly known by the mark. The Complainant provides evidence to show that the disputed domain name is being used to point to a web site related to hotels. The Respondent states that it has not yet decided exactly how it plans to use the disputed domain name, but it might be used to broker hotel rooms, which, according to the Respondent, would be a legitimate use. The Examiner disagrees. In cases such as Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v. CS into Tech, FA 198795 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003), and Golden Bear Int’l, Inc. v. Kangdeock-ho, FA 190644 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003), previous panels have held that the use of a disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites which are unrelated to the Complainant are not uses within the scope of Policy 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii) as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Further, past panels have found that using an identical domain name to offer services that compete with a Complainant does not demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003). Thus the Panel finds that the Respondent has no right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

As noted above, the Respondent is or is considering using the disputed domain name to offer services that compete with those of the Complainant. This has been found to constitute bad faith under Policy 4(a)(iv). See MathForum.com, LLC v. Weiguang Huang, D2000-0743 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy 4(b)(iv) where the respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark and the domain name was used to host a commercial website that offered similar services offered by the complainant under its mark); see also AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes). The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name was registered and it being used in bad faith in the sense of 1.2.6.3(d) of the URS.

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:

1. holidayinn.vegas