NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. hong yong
Claim Number: FA1410001587022
DOMAIN NAME
<holidayinn.wang>
PARTIES
Complainant: Six Continents Hotels, Inc. of Atlanta, GA, United States of America | |
Complainant Representative: The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC
Douglas M Isenberg of Atlanta, GA, United States of America
|
Respondent: hong yong yong hong of shanghai, shanghai, II, CN | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Zodiac Leo Limited | |
Registrars: 上海美橙 |
EXAMINER
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. | |
Flip Jan Claude Petillion, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: October 28, 2014 | |
Commencement: October 29, 2014 | |
Default Date: November 13, 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"). |
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration. |
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Clear and convincing evidence. |
FINDINGS and DISCUSSION
Findings of Fact: Complainant is active in the hotel industry and uses its HOLIDAY INN trademark in commerce for hotels. Complainant holds trademark registrations for its HOLIDAY INN trademark in the United States. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 10, 2014. The disputed domain name is used to redirect to one of the Complainant’s websites. 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. |
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant shows to be the holder of at least valid national registrations in the HOLIDAY INN trademark and that the trademark is in current use. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name <holidayinn.wang> is identical to the Complainant’s HOLIDAY INN Trademark. Therefore, Examiner finds that the first element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.1 has been proven. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its registered HOLIDAY INN trademark. Respondent has not submitted any evidence to prove that he is commonly known as HOLIDAY INN or under the disputed domain name. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in HOLIDAY INN and the disputed domain names, or evidence about a fair use either. Therefore, Examiner finds that the second element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.2 has also been proven.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant The passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith registration and use, especially when combined with other factors such as the respondent preventing a trademark or service mark holder from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, the failure of the respondent to respond to the complaint, inconceivable good faith use, etc. (See e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Myer Stores Limited v. Mr. David John Singh, WIPO Case No. D2001-0763; Liu.Jo S.p.A. v. Martina Hamsikova, WIPO Case No. D2013-1261). In the present case, Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name as it simply redirects to one of the Complainant’s websites. Redirecting the domain name to the Complainant’s website can also be an indication of bad faith as such when it is done for commercial gain (See VistaPrint USA, Inc. v. Electric Attic, NAF Case No. 1258624; Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Internet Hosting, NAF Case No. 124516). Respondent also failed to respond to the complaint in accordance with the Rules. It is inconceivable to this Panel that Respondent was unaware of Complainant and its trademark rights when it registered the disputed domain name which is identical to Complainant’s HOLIDAY INN trademark. The domain name was registered during the trademark claims period for the .WANG gTLD. Complainant’s trademark was validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse prior to the registration of the dispute disputed domain name. As a result, Respondent must have been given a trademark claims notice of Complainant’s rights in the HOLIDAY INN trademark. Hence, it is apparent that Respondent had Complainant in mind when registering the disputed domain name and that Respondent registered the domain name either with the purpose of selling it to Complainant or in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name. Therefore, Examiner finds that the third element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.3 has been proven. 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:
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:
|
Flip Jan Claude Petillion Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page