Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. gao tianyong et al.
Claim Number: FA1501001597912




   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: gao tianyong gao tianyong of beijing, II, China


   Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC
   Registrars: 101Domain, Inc.


   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.
   David L. Kreider Esq,, as Examiner


   Complainant Submitted: January 2, 2015
   Commencement: January 2, 2015
   Response Date: January 12, 2015
   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 requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.


   Clear and convincing evidence.


   Findings of Fact: Complainant's Holiday Inn brand, founded in 1952, is used in connection with 1,168 hotels. Complainant owns more than 1,700 TM registrations in at least 200 countries or territories that contain the 'Holiday Inn' mark. The TM is registered with the ICANN Trademark Clearing House.


URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.

[URS] 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 Disputed Domain Name <> is identical to Claimant's valid, nationally registered TM that is in current use, as is reflected to a 'clear and convincing' standard by Claimant's documentary evidence. Claimant has prevailed in other NAF URS proceedings, including in relation to the domains <>; <>; and <>.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is using the domain to re-direct Internet traffic to its own website, the content of which is highly likely to mislead public Internet users.

[URS] 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 

The 'Holiday Inn' TM is so obviously connected with Claimant that Respondent's actions reflect opportunistic bad faith.


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:

  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 


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:



David L. Kreider Esq,
Dated: January 13, 2015



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page