URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Hilton Honors Worldwide LLC et al. v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al.
Claim Number: FA1909001862794


DOMAIN NAME

<hilton-honors.services>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Hilton International Holding LLC of McLean, VA, United States of America
  
Complainant Representative: DLA Piper LLP (US) Alberto Zacapa of Washington, DC, United States of America

   Respondent: WhoisGuard, Inc. REDACTED FOR PRIVACY of Panama Panama, Panama, PA
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Binky Moon, LLC
   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.
   Hector Ariel Manoff, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: September 19, 2019
   Commencement: September 20, 2019
   Default Date: October 7, 2019
   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 domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

STANDARD OF REVIEW


   Clear and convincing evidence.

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION



   Findings of Fact: Complainant, Hilton Honors Worldwide (�Hilton�), is a leading global hospitality group, with presence in more than 100 countries. Complainant owns HITLTON trademark registrations around the world. Throughout years of use, the Hilton Marks have become well and favorably known throughout the United States and internationally. HILTON is a well-known trademark. Complainant operates its official Internet web site at <hilton.com>, and this site includes sections referred to HILTON HONORS rewards program: https://www.hilton.com/en/hilton-honors/. HILTON trademark and HILTON HONOURS have been in used for years. Complainant has established worldwide rights in its well-known HILTON and HILTON HONORS.

  

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 


The disputed domain name <hiltonhonors.services> is nearly identical to Complainant�s registered HILTON HONORS mark. It combines the mentioned Trademark with the addition of the generic and descriptive word �services�, indicating the purpose of offering HILTON HONORS services. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant�s trademark registrations and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.1 by demonstrating that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national registration which is in current use.


[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 trademark HILTON HONORS. Complainant has not licensed or permitted Respondent to use the Hilton Marks or to apply for any Domain Name incorporating the Hilton Marks., No evidence was submitted by Respondent to prove that he is commonly known as HILTON HONORS. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in HILTON HONORS and the disputed domain name, or evidence about a fair use either. The Examiner finds that the requirements set forth by URS 1.2.6.2 have been also met.


[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 


Since Complainant�s famous trademarks are prior to the disputed domain name�s registration, Examiner concludes that the registration of the disputed domain name was made on bad faith. Regarding the use of the domain name, it is designed to attract users to its website where it impersonates Complainant. Customers enter their personal login credentials to Hilton�s HILTON HONORS rewards program into Respondent�s website. Furthermore, Examiner agrees with complainant in that Respondent�s use of the HILTON HONORS mark owned by Complainant will clearly lead to confusion that Respondent is Complainant or a subsidiary, licensee, or affiliate of Complainant, when it is not. Thus, Respondent�s websites create a false association between Respondent and Complainant. Examiner finds that the disputed domain names are being used in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.3.


FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD


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. 

DETERMINATION


After reviewing the parties 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 name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

  1. hilton-honors.services

 

Hector Ariel Manoff
Examiner
Dated: October 10, 2019

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page