Six Continents Hotels, Inc. and Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. Stiruam Bv et al.
Claim Number: FA1509001636552
Complainant: Six Continents Hotels, Inc. and Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Respondent: Stiruam Bv of UTRECHT, International, NL.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Gemeente Amsterdam
Registrars: Mijndomein.nl BV
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.
Bart Van Besien, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: September 4, 2015
Commencement: September 8, 2015
Default Date: September 23, 2015
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the 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 names be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Complainants are the owners of various trademarks.
Complainants have provided evidence of the following US trademarks:
· US Word trademark “CROWNE PLAZA’:
o registration number: 1297211
o registration date: 18 September 1984
o Registrant: Holidays, Inc.
o Last listed owner: Six Continents Hotels, Inc. (i.e., First Complainant)
o Status: registered/live.
· US Word trademark “HOLIDAY INN:
o registration number: 0592539
o registration date: 13 July 1954
o Registrant: Holiday Inn Hotel Courts, Inc.
o Last listed owner: Six Continents Hotels, Inc. (i.e., First Complainant)
o Status: registered/live.
· US Word trademark “INTERCONTINENTAL:
o registration number: 0890271
o registration date: 28 April 1970
o Registrant: Intercontinental Hotels Corporation
o Last listed owner: Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation (i.e., Second Complainant)
o Status: registered/live.
Complainants have provided evidence of effective use of these trademarks.
The domain names are currently linked to inactive websites. The Examiner considers these domains as parked domains. The inactive websites mention (in Dutch) “Dit domein is geregistreerd door een klant van mijndomein.nl” (English translation: “This domain is registered by a client of mijndomein.nl”) and (in Dutch) “controleer hier of jouw domeinnaam nog vrij is” (English translation: “check here if your domainname is still available”).
The Respondent did not file a response.
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 is 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 Complainants
URS 1.2.6.1 (i) covers the domain names at issue in this case.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for Complainants
Respondent did not file a response and did not provide evidence of legitimate rights or interests in the domain names. There is no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain names. There is no evidence of any similar or identical trademarks owned by the Respondent. There is no indication of any authorization to use the Complainants’ trademarks. There is no indication that the Respondent is otherwise related to the Complainants’ business. There is no evidence of the Respondent being commonly known under the domain names (or similar names) prior to the registration of the disputed domain names. The domain names are currently parked (no bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate or noncommercial or fair use).
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name was 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 Complainants
URS 1.2.6.3 (b) and (d) are applicable here.
There is no evidence of use by Respondent (or demonstrable preparations to use) of the domain names or a name corresponding to the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods (the domain names are parked domain names). There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the domain names. There is no evidence that the Registrant is making a legitimate or fair use of the domain names.
There are no circumstances known to the Examiner that refute the claim of bad faith registration or bad faith use.
The Examiner finds that the Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. The Examiner finds the Complaint well founded. No Response was submitted.
After reviewing the Complainants’ submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainants have demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
crowneplaza.amsterdam
holidayinn.amsterdam
intercontinental.amsterdam
Bart Van Besien, Examiner
Dated: September 23, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page