URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

 

Radisson Hotels International, Inc. v. WhoisGuard, Inc.

Claim Number: FA1603001667240

 

DOMAIN NAME

<radissonblu.site>

 

PARTIES

Complainant:  Radisson Hotels International, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.

Complainant Representative: 

 

Respondent:  WhoisGuard, Inc.

Respondent Representative:  None

 

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

Registries:  DotSite Inc.

Registrars:  NameCheap, Inc.

 

EXAMINER

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.

 

James Bridgeman, as Examiner.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted: March 24, 2016

Commencement: March 24, 2016   

Default Date: April 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") .

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Clear and convincing evidence.

 

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION

 

Complainant, operates an international group of hotels under the RADISSON BLU and RADISSON trademarks around the world and has provided evidence of its ownership of United States of America Trademark RADISSION BLU, registration number 4,070,968, registered on December 13, 2011 for services in international class 43. Complainant also maintains websites to which its internet domain names <radissonblu.com> and <radisson.com> resolve.

 

The disputed domain name <radissonblu.site> was registered on February 18, 2016.

 

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:

“1.2.6.1. that 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.

a. Use can be shown by demonstrating that evidence of use – which can be a declaration and one specimen of current use in commerce

– was submitted to, and validated by, the Trademark Clearinghouse)

b. Proof of use may also be submitted directly with the URS Complaint. and

1.2.6.2. that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name; and

1.2.6.3. that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.”

 

This Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s registered trademark which is currently in use by Complainant. The gTLD <.site> extension may be ignored for the purposes of comparison.

 

Respondent has failed to submit a Response or otherwise provide any evidence that it has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in circumstances where Complainant has made out a prima facie case that it has no such rights.

 

On the evidence on file, Respondent’ is currently using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet traffic to <protectedparking.com> and ultimately to Complainant’s own website at the <radissonblu.com> address. The Examiner accepts Complainant’s submissions that because of the distinctive character of the RADISSON BLU trademark, on the balance of probabilities, Respondent was undoubtedly aware of Complainant’s trademark rights prior to registering the disputed domain name. It is improbable that the Respondent would have registered and used the disputed domain name in the manner in which it has done for any reason except to take predatory advantage of Complainant’s rights for commercial gain by confusing Internet users and diverting Internet traffic intended for Complainant.

 

FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD

 

This Examiner makes no finding of abuse or material falsehood.

 

DETERMINATION

After reviewing Complainant’s submissions, this Examiner determines that 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:

 

<radissonblu.site>

 

 

James Bridgeman, Examiner

Dated:  April 9, 2016

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page