Radisson Hotels International, Inc. v. Gao Guo et al.
Claim Number: FA1611001704052
Complainant: Radisson Hotels International, Inc. of Minnetonka, Minnesota, United States of America.
Complainant Representative:
Respondent: Gao Cheng Guo of Beijing, Beijing, International, CN.
Respondent Representative: N/A
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: First Registry Limited
Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn)
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.
Complainant submitted: November 21, 2016
Commencement: November 23, 2016
Default Date: December 8, 2016
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 name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Findings of Fact: Complainant is active in the hotel industry and uses its RADISSON trademark in commerce for hotels. Complainant holds trademark registrations for its RADISSON trademark in numerous countries including China. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 11, 2016. The disputed domain name is used to redirect to a false web page mentioning the Complainant’s figurative RADISSON trademark and falsely offering to book rooms in one of the Complainant’s hotels which is not yet open.
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:
(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
Complainant shows to be the holder of valid national registrations in the RADISSON trademark and that the trademark is in current use. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name <radisson-exhibition-center-shanghai.win> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s RADISSON trademark, as it incorporates the Complainant’s RADISSON trademark and merely adds generic and geographic terms referring to a hotel which will be opened by the Complainant. Moreover, the new gTLD “.WIN" is generic as compared to the distinctive sign "RADISSON", and therefore does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s RADISSON trademark. Respondent does not contest this.
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 RADISSON trademark. Respondent has not submitted any evidence to prove that he is commonly known as RADISSON or under the disputed domain name. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in RADISSON and the disputed domain name, 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.
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
As mentioned above, the disputed domain name is used to redirect to a false web page mentioning the Complainant’s figurative RADISSON trademark and, according to the Complainant, falsely offering to book rooms in one of the Complainant’s hotels which is not yet open. Moreover, the Complainant claims that its RADISSON trademark is recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse (“TMCH”), so that the Respondent was required to click on an Acknowledgement of Trademark Claim when registering the disputed domain name. The above has not been contested by the Respondent.
Therefore, Examiner finds that the Respondent must have known the Complainant’s RADISSON trademark when registering the disputed domain name. Moreover, Examiner finds that there is clear and convincing evidence of the fact that by using the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s web site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site.
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.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<radisson-exhibition-center-shanghai.win>
Flip Jan Claude Petillion, Examiner
Dated: December 13, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page