priceline.com LLC v. jason stroppel
Claim Number: FA1805001785640
Complainant is priceline.com LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Jamie E. Sternberg of Cantor Colburn LLP, Connecticut, USA. Respondent is jason stroppel ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <pricelineautomotive.net>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 8, 2018; the Forum received payment on May 8, 2018.
On May 9, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <pricelineautomotive.net> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 May 11, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 31, 2018 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@pricelineautomotive.net. Also on May 11, 2018, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 June 5, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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
Complainant (together with a predecessor in interest) has offered Internet-based travel services under the PRICELINE marks since 1998. These services include reservations for airline tickets, hotel rooms, rental cars, vacation packages, and other travel services. Complainant states that its website was one of the world's top ten most visited e-commerce sites as early as the first month in which it was launched. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for PRICELINE and PRICELINE.COM in the United States and many other jurisdictions. Complainant asserts that its marks have become famous as a result of longstanding and extensive use and promotion.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <pricelineautomotive.net> through a privacy registration service on August 26, 2017. Respondent previously registered the domain name <pricelineautomotive.com>, which was transferred to Complainant as a result of a proceeding under the Policy. See Priceline.com LLC v. Jason Stroppel, FA 1733802 (Forum July 3, 2017). Another domain name, <plineautomotive.com>, was registered to or by an automotive marketing service on August 28, 2017, apparently for Respondent's benefit. The disputed domain name <pricelineautomotive.net> redirects to <plineautomotive.com>, which displays a website promoting what appears to be a used car business in Tampa, Florida. Respondent's former domain name <pricelineautomotive.com> was used for a similar or identical site.
Complainant states that it is unaware of any relationship between the parties that would give rise to any license, permission, or authorization for Respondent to own or use the disputed domain name, and alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant notes that its trademark registrations cover transportation services, and that it has used the PRICELINE marks for car rental booking services for twenty years. As a result, Complainant alleges, Respondent's use of the PRICELINE mark within the disputed domain name and on the associated website are likely to mislead consumers into believing that they are approved of, sponsored by, or affiliated with Complainant.
Complainant contends, on the above grounds, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 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.
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(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.").
The disputed domain name <pricelineautomotive.net> incorporates Complainant's registered PRICELINE mark, adding the generic term "automotive" and the ".net" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Priceline.com LLC v. Jason Stroppel, supra (finding <pricelineautomotive.com> confusingly similar to PRICELINE). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name <pricelineautomotive.net> incorporates Complainant's famous PRICELINE mark. It is being used to promote what appears to be a used car business with a name that also incorporates Complainant's mark. Complainant alleges that the use of its mark within the disputed domain name infringes its rights. Respondent has not come forward to assert an entitlement to use PRICELINE within his business name or, for that matter, to prove that he is actually using such a business name or is engaging in bona fide commercial activity.
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent'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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent was clearly aware of Complainant's rights in the PRICELINE mark when he registered the disputed domain name, having just lost the corresponding ".com" domain name in the prior proceeding, see Priceline.com LLC v. Jason Stroppel, supra, and promptly thereafter chose to register the ".net" version in the name of a privacy registration service, in an effort to conceal his identity. In light of Complainant's allegations and Respondent's failure to respond, the Panel considers it appropriate to draw similar inferences in this proceeding. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <pricelineautomotive.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: June 5, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page