Exclusive Resorts LLC v. Rob Faoumouina
Claim Number: FA1804001782453
Complainant is Exclusive Resorts LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Dana P. Jozefczyk of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Colorado, USA. Respondent is Rob Faoumouina (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <exclusiveresortsportal.com>, (the “Domain Name”) registered with Tucows Domains Inc.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 18, 2018; the Forum received payment on April 18, 2018.
On April 19, 2018, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <exclusiveresortsportal.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On April 19, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 9, 2018 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@exclusiveresortsportal.com. Also on April 19, 2018, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 14, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark EXCLUSIVE RESORTS, registered, inter alia in the USA, EU and the UK with first use recorded as 2002 for services relating to vacation properties.
The Respondent registered the Domain Name in 2017 and offers through it luxury destination services competing with the Complainant. The website is clearly intended to reach an English speaking audience and advertises the costs of its services in Euros.
The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s EXCLUSIVE RESORTS trade mark, the generic word ‘portal’ and the gTLD .com and the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark of the Complainant.
The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has no permission from the Complainant to use the Complainant’s mark. To use the Complainant’s mark to offer competing services cannot be bona fide use or a legitimate fair use.
Indeed the diversion of customers using the Complainant’s trade mark to offer competing services is causing confusion on the Internet and disrupting the Complainant’s business.
B. Respondent
The Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark EXCLUSIVE RESORTS, registered, inter alia in the USA, EU and the UK with first use recorded as 2002 for services relating to vacation properties.
The Domain Name has been used for a website offering luxury vacation accommodation which is not connected to the Complainant.
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."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(2) the 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.
In view of the Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 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 (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.”).
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of the Complainant's EXCLUSIVE RESORTS mark (which is registered, inter alia in USA, EU and UK for services relating to vacation properties and has been used since 2002), the generic term ‘portal’ and the gTLD .com. Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underling mark held by the complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term ‘portal’ to the Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. In fact it may add to confusion as the Complainant carries on business on the Internet in the same sector.
The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the EXCLUSIVE RESORTS mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact. commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The web site to which the Domain Name redirects offers luxury accommodation services in competition with those of the Complainant. It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise real estate services which competed with the complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.)
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it offers competing services under a Domain Name containing the Complainant’s EXCLUSIVE RESORTS mark. The fact that the website is in English and the prices in Euros makes it likely the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business and it has not responded to deny the same. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to advertise car dealerships that competed with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of those competing dealerships and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iv) and 4(b)(iii). It is not necessary to consider any further alleged grounds of bad faith.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <exclusiveresortsportal.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: May 15, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page