Expedia, Inc. v. eSpedia, Inc
Claim Number: FA0512000612052
Complainant is Expedia, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Sanjiv D. Sarwate, of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, 311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5000, Chicago, IL 60606. Respondent is eSpedia, Inc. (“Respondent”), 1670 Satin Leaf Court, Delray Beach, FL 33445.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <espediacorporate.com> and <corporateespedia.com>, registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc.
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.
Louis E. Condon as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 19, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 21, 2005.
On December 20, 2005, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <espediacorporate.com> and <corporateespedia.com> domain names are registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Go Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On December 21, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 10, 2006 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@espediacorporate.com and postmaster@corporateespedia.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 13, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <espediacorporate.com> and <corporateespedia.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s EXPEDIA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <espediacorporate.com> and <corporateespedia.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <espediacorporate.com> and <corporateespedia.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Expedia, Inc., provides online travel information and services, primarily airline, hotel, and rental car reservations for both leisure and corporate travel in addition to online sales of entertainment and sporting events. In connection with the provision of these services, Complainant has registered the EXPEDIA mark (Reg. No. 2,633,295 issued October 8, 2002) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent registered both of the <espediacorporate.com> and <corporateespedia.com> domain names on May 17, 2004. Each of Respondent’s disputed domain names resolves to a website that feature links to various competing and non-competing commercial websites.
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."
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.”).
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.
Complainant has established rights in the EXPEDIA mark through registration with the USPTO. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”).
Complainant asserts that both of Respondent’s <espediacorporate.com> and <corporateespedia.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s EXPEDIA mark. Each of Respondent’s disputed domain names features a misspelled variation of Complainant’s mark by replacing the letter “x” with the similar sounding letter “s” and adds the generic term “corporate” to either the beginning or the end of the domain name. The Panel finds that neither the substitution of a single letter nor the addition of a generic term describing a facet of the business in which Complainant engages is sufficient to distinguish Respondent’s disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Peppler, FA 103437 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 22, 2002) (finding the word “quest” and “crest” to be similar in sound and, thus, that the respondent’s <mapcrest.com> domain name and the complainant’s MAP QUEST mark are confusingly similar); see also Belkin Components v. Gallant, FA 97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2001) (finding the <belken.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's BELKIN mark because the name merely replaced the letter “i” in the complainant's mark with the letter “e”); see also Christie’s Inc. v. Tiffany’s Jewelry Auction, Inc., D2001-0075 (WIPO Mar. 6, 2001) (finding that the domain name <christiesauction.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant's mark since it merely adds the word “auction” used in its generic sense); see also Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in either of the <espediacorporate.com> and <corporateespedia.com> domain names. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel infers that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <espediacorporate.com>
and <corporateespedia.com> domain names both resolve to
websites that feature links to various competing and non-competing commercial
links from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. The Panel finds that such use is neither a bona
fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev,
FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users
to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark, websites where the respondent
presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not
a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the
Policy); see also Golden Bear Int’l, Inc. v. Kangdeock-ho, FA 190644
(Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003) (“Respondent's use of a domain name confusingly
similar to Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to websites unrelated to
Complainant's business does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or
services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under
Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Furthermore, Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the <espediacorporate.com> and <corporateespedia.com> domain names or licensed to register domain names featuring Complainant’s EXPEDIA mark or any combination thereof. In the absence of evidence to suggest otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA 173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that without demonstrable evidence to support the assertion that a respondent is commonly known by a domain name, the assertion must be rejected); see also 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been
satisfied.
Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <espediacorporate.com>
and <corporateespedia.com> domain names to operate a website
featuring links to various commercial websites for Respondent’s own commercial
gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). See Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli,
FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the
respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant’s site to its own
website for commercial gain); see also Associated
Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA
201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the
<mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's
competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the
misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”). Furthermore, there is likely to be confusion
among Internet users as to Complainant’s affiliation with or sponsorship of the
resulting websites. See Am. Univ. v.
Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a
domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive
Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is
evidence of bad faith.”); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Warren, FA
204147 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (“Although
Complainant’s principal website is <century21.com>, many Internet users
are likely to use search engines to find Complainant’s website, only to be
mislead to Respondent’s website at the <century21realty.biz> domain name,
which features links for competing real estate websites. Therefore, it is likely that Internet users
seeking Complainant’s website, but who end up at Respondent’s website, will be
confused as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of
Respondent’s website.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶
4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <espediacorporate.com> and <corporateespedia.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated: January 25. 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum