Airbnb, Inc. v. Zaur Kalantarli / Kalantar Brothers LLC
Claim Number: FA1908001860289
Complainant is Airbnb, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David K. Caplan of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Zaur Kalantarli / Kalantar Brothers LLC (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <airbnb.llc>, 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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 30, 2019; the Forum received payment on August 30, 2019.
On September 3, 2019, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <airbnb.llc> 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 September 5, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 25, 2019 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@airbnb.llc. Also on September 5, 2019, 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. Respondent did however send e-mails to the Forum, see below.
On September 26, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is known worldwide for its revolutionary approach to people-powered travel and hospitality. Specifically, Complainant matches renters of temporary lodging with owners of rental properties, provides registered users with directories of rental properties, and property reviews and renter feedback. Complainant connects people to unique travel experiences, at any price point, with more than 6 million listings in more than 100,000 cities and 191 countries. Since Complainant’s launch, its business has enjoyed staggering growth. In February 2011, Complainant announced its 1 millionth booking since its inception. In January 2012, Complainant accounted its 5 millionth booking. Five months later, Complainant announced that this number had doubled, to 10 million bookings. By November 25, 2014, there were 640,000 properties listed by Complainant. By May 2015, over 500,000 people were staying in listed properties per night. More than one million guests booked rooms on Complainant’s website on December 31, 2015. In 2015, Complainant had 40 million travelers check into its listings. That number grew close to 80 million in 2016. By July 2016, Complainant had celebrated its 100 millionth guest. As of October 2017, Complainant had hosted more than 200 million guests through more than 3 million property listings. In March 2019, it celebrated its 500 millionth guest. As of July 2019, an average of 2 million people were staying at properties listed by Complainant per night. Complainant has rights in the AIRBNB mark through its trademark registrations in the United States in 2010.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical to its AIRBNB mark as it fully incorporates the mark along with a “.llc” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s AIRBNB mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent has attempted to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for $4,276.00, claiming that this had been the registration cost. When Complainant requested proof of payment, due to the excessive amount claimed to have been expended by Respondent, Respondent produced purported redacted invoices from the registrar to support its claim. Complainant’s counsel inquired with the registrar to verify the documents and, upon information and belief, has concluded that Respondent may have falsified the invoices in order to increase the purported registration cost. Respondent’s inflation of the purported cost of the disputed domain name and attempt to substantiate such cost with falsified documents makes clear its intent to sell the domain name for a price in excess of its out-of-pocket costs and is a clear indication of bad faith registration and use. Further, Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AIRBNB mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In its e-mails to the Forum Respondent states, in pertinent part: “The domain is being expired in October. So I will not make any action and wait for expire date. They can take over the domain after that.” And: “The domain expires 10/21/2019 and we have cancelled the renewal. So your client can buy the domain after October 21st.” And: “We tried to cancel domain on Godaddy, but since there is lock on the domain we were not able to delete it.”
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.
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.
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."
In the present case, Respondent has consented to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant. That is, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.
See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <airbnb.llc> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: September 27, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page