Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. indy derhaley
Claim Number: FA1409001578905
Complainant: Six Continents Hotels, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Complainant’s Representative: The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Respondent: indy derhaley of Hayes, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Dot London Domains Limited
Registrars: Host Europe Group
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.
Peter Müller, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: September 9, 2014
Commencement: September 10, 2014
Default Date: September 25, 2014
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").
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
No multiple Complainants or Respondents and no multiple disputed domain names require dismissal.
Findings of Fact:
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6. requires the 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.
The Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is inter alia registered owner of the US trademark registration no. 1297211 CROWNE PLAZA, which was registered on September 18, 1984 covering “Hotel Services-Namely, Providing Lodging and Restaurant Services in Hotels” as well as documents to show that the trademark is in current use.
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s CROWNE PLAZA Mark. It is well established that the specific top level domain name is generally not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s CROWNE PLAZA Mark and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
[1.2.6.2.] The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.
The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In fact, the disputed domain name is used in connection with a website providing “Sponsored Listings,” i.e. advertising links to third parties’ websites.
The Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
[1.2.6.3.] The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the Complainant’s CROWNE PLAZA Mark is famous, that the Respondent’s actions suggest “opportunistic bad faith,” and that “Sponsored Listings” of the type associated with Respondent’s website are evidence of bad faith.
The Complainant’s CROWNE PLAZA Mark was validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse prior to the registration of the dispute disputed domain name. As a result, the Respondent must have been given a trademark claims notice of the Complainant’s rights and therefore registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. As to bad faith use, by fully incorporating the CROWNE PLAZA Mark into the disputed domain name and by using the website at such domain name as a parking website providing links to third parties, the Respondent was, in all likelihood, trying to divert traffic intended for the Complainant's website to its own for the purpose of earning click-through revenues from Internet users searching for the Complainant's website as set out in URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.d.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
No abuse or material falsehood.
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.
<crowneplaza.london>
Peter Müller, Examiner
Dated: September 29, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page