Fareportal Inc. v. Rajiv Arora
Claim Number: FA1602001662498
Complainant: Fareportal Inc. of New York, New York, United States of America.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Brittany L Kaplan of New York, New York, United States of America.
Respondent: Rajiv Arora of San Jose, California, UG.
Respondent Representative: N/A
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Wild Way, LLC
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
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: February 24, 2016
Commencement: February 24, 2016
Default Date: March 10, 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 a technology company that develops computer software used to power travel-related websites, including the online travel agency <www.onetravel.com>. Complainant holds a trademark registration for the sign ‘ONETRAVEL’ in the United States of America. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 14, 2015. The disputed domain name redirects to a website offering travel services.
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 at least one valid international registration in the ONETRAVEL trademark and that the trademark is in current use. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name <onetravel.international> is identical to Complainant’s ONETRAVEL trademark. The top level domain is usually considered to be irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity (Facebook Inc. v. Radoslav, Claim Number: FA1308001515825). In this case, Examiner finds that the new gTLD “.INTERNATIONAL" increases the potential confusion amongst Internet users, given the international nature of the services provided by Complainant under its ONETRAVEL 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 ONETRAVEL trademark. Respondent has not submitted any evidence to prove that he is commonly known as ONETRAVEL or under the disputed domain name. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in ONETRAVEL and the disputed domain name, or evidence about a fair use either. Respondent does not contest the arguments of Complainant. 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
In the present case, the disputed domain name redirects to a website which is almost an exact copy of the Complainant’s website. The website linked to the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s ONETRAVEL trademark and copies the trademark’s color pattern used on Complainant’s website (orange for the word “ONE”, and black for the word “TRAVEL”).
Therefore, it is inconceivable to the Examiner that Respondent was unaware of Complainant and its trademark rights when it registered the disputed domain name which is identical to Complainant’s ONETRAVEL trademark.
By copying Complainant’s website, Respondent created a high likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website originating from Respondent.
Respondent did not file any response to contest the above. 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.
The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.
The Examiner finds as follows:
1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.
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:
onetravel.international
Flip Jan Claude Petillion, Examiner
Dated: March 14, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page