Radisson Hotels International, Inc. v. Jason Bond
Claim Number: FA1503001611278
Complainant is Radisson Hotels International, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Steven M. Levy, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Jason Bond (“Respondent”), China, Hong Kong S.A.R.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <radissonbluhotelshanghainewworld.com> and <radissonblupudongcenturypark.com>, registered with FABULOUS.COM PTY 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 25, 2015; the Forum received payment on April 3, 2015.
On March 26, 2015, FABULOUS.COM PTY LTD. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <radissonbluhotelshanghainewworld.com> and <radissonblupudongcenturypark.com> domain names are registered with FABULOUS.COM PTY LTD. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. FABULOUS.COM PTY LTD. has verified that Respondent is bound by the FABULOUS.COM PTY 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 April 3, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 23, 2015 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@radissonbluhotelshanghainewworld.com, postmaster@radissonblupudongcenturypark.com. Also on April 3, 2015, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 30, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant uses the RADISSON BLU mark in connection with its business in the hotel and lodging industry.
Complainant has registered the RADISSON BLU mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,070,968, registered December 13, 2011), which evinces rights in the mark.
Respondent’s <radissonbluhotelshanghainewworld.com> and <radissonblupudongcenturypark.com> domain names are confusingly similar because they incorporate the RADISSON BLU mark in its entirety and add the words “Hotel Shanghai New World” or “Pudong Century Park”, the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), and eliminate spacing between words.
Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not given Respondent authorization to register the <radissonbluhotelshanghainewworld.com> and <radissonblupudongcenturypark.com> domain names or any variant of the RADISSON BLU mark. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent’s <radissonbluhotelshanghainewworld.com> and <radissonblupudongcenturypark.com> domain names resolve to pages which are effectively unauthorized hotel booking websites, in a scheme to defraud Internet users and consumers. In doing so, Respondent is passing itself off as a reseller of Complainant’s hotel room reservations.
Respondent is a serial cybersquatter with at least one prior UDRP case which has been successfully brought against it in which Respondent registered 17 infringing domains.
Respondent has engaged in a fraudulent scheme to confuse Internet users and engage in the deceptive booking of hotel rooms which are lower in quality than what the customers pay for, while pocketing the difference in price.
Because of the fame and notoriety associated with the RADISSON BLU mark and the related character of the content found in the resolving pages of the <radissonbluhotelshanghainewworld.com> and <radissonblupudongcenturypark.com> domain names, Respondent registered the domain names with actual knowledge of the RADISSON BLU mark and Complainant’s rights in the mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the RADISSON BLU mark through its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in its relevant trademarks.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain names to address Respondent’s <radissonbluhotelshanghainewworld.com> and <radissonblupudongcenturypark.com> websites which are unauthorized hotel booking websites, in a scheme to defraud Internet users and consumers. In doing so, Respondent passes itself off as a reseller of Complainant’s hotel room reservations.
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 at-issue domain names are each confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of USPTO trademark registrations for the RADISSON BLU trademark demonstrates its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i). Complainant’s rights exist notwithstanding that Respondent may operate outside the jurisdiction of the trademark’s registrar. See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also, Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
In forming the <radissonbluhotelshanghainewworld.com> and <radissonblupudongcenturypark.com> domain names Respondent incorporates Complainant’s RADISSON BLU mark in its entirety less its space, add the words “Hotel Shanghai New World” or “Pudong Century Park”, and appends the “.com” top-level domain name to the resulting strings. Respondent’s juxtaposition of geographic/descriptive/generic words with Complainant’s trademark in its at-issue domain names is insufficient to distinguish either domain name from Complainant’s trademark under the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that each of the at-issue domain names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RADISSON BLU trademark. See 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.”); see also Miller Brewing Co. v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., FA 243606 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2004) (finding that the <millerbeers.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s MILLER mark, because “[t]he addition of a descriptive term that describes Complainant’s business to Complainant’s registered mark, does not remove the domain from the realm of confusing similarity with regard to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also, Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “spaces are impermissible and a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names. Therefore, the panel finds that the disputed domain name [<americangenerallifeinsurance.com>] is confusingly similar to the complainant’s [AMERICAN GENERAL] mark.”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of each at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of any of the at-issue domain names.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain names list “Jason Bond” as the domain names’ registrant and there is nothing in the record that otherwise suggests Respondent is commonly known by either the <radissonbluhotelshanghainewworld.com> or the<radissonblupudongcenturypark.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by either at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name).
Respondent uses the domain names to address Respondent’s <radissonbluhotelshanghainewworld.com> and <radissonblupudongcenturypark.com> websites which are unauthorized hotel booking websites, in conjunction with a scheme to defraud Internet users and consumers. In doing so, Respondent hopes to pass itself off as a reseller of Complainant’s hotel room reservations. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See B Hotel Group, LLC v. Pierre Honore, FA 1564618 (Nat. Arb. Forum August 1, 2014) (find[ing] that Respondent’s unauthorized booking of hotels under a confusingly similar domain name is neither a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also, Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶4(a)(ii) and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of each at-issue domain name.
The domain names were each registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below, Policy ¶4(b) specific bad faith circumstances as well as other circumstance are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
Evidence suggests that Respondent is a serial cybersquatter. There is at least one prior UDRP case which has been successfully brought against Respondent in which Respondent registered 17 infringing domains. See Accor and So Luxury HMC v. Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd, Domain Hostmaster / Jason Bond, D2014-0558 (WIPO June 19, 2014) (holding Respondent’s primary motive in relation to the registration and use of the disputed domain names was to capitalize on, or otherwise take advantage of, the Complainants’ trademark rights through the creation of Internet user confusion). Respondent’s prior behavior suggests its bad faith regarding the<radissonbluhotelshanghainewworld.com> and <radissonblupudongcenturypark.com> domain names in the instant dispute, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bin g Glu, FA 1036129 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2007) (holding prior UDRP proceedings were sufficient evidence of a pattern of bad faith registrations).
As mentioned above, Respondent has engaged in a fraudulent scheme to confuse Internet users, deceptively booking of hotel rooms which are lower in quality than what the customers pay for, while pocketing the difference in price. Such use of the domain names demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See B Hotel Group, LLC v. Pierre Honore, FA 1564618 (Nat. Arb. Forum August 1, 2014) (“Respondent profits through a likelihood of confusion because it gives the impression that Internet users are visiting the legitimate website of Complainant when in reality each reservation made through this website costs Complainant a 20% commission fee per night booked. The Panel notse [sic] the domain name’s website apparently promotes the booking of hotel rooms at B2 facilities. Respondent’s attempts to secure revenues and commission fees through this use of the confusingly similar <b2hotelmiamidowntown.com> domain name are evidence of an Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) intent to profit through likelihood of confusion.”).
Finally, Respondent registered the <radissonbluhotelshanghainewworld.com> and <radissonblupudongcenturypark.com> domain names knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the RADISSON BLU mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s combination of Complainant’s mark with suggestive terms in forming the two confusingly similar domain names. Given the forgoing, it is clear that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain names precisely to improperly exploit their trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <radissonbluhotelshanghainewworld.com> and <radissonblupudongcenturypark.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: May 5, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page