Radisson Hospitality Belgium BV/SRL v. Dalton Massey
Claim Number: FA2011001920533
Complainant is Radisson Hospitality Belgium BV/SRL (“Complainant”), represented by Ashley M. Bennett Ewald of LATHROP GPM, LLP, United States. Respondent is Dalton Massey (“Respondent”), United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <radissonusa.com>, 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 November 12, 2020; the Forum received payment on November 12, 2020.
On November 13, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <radissonusa.com> 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 November 16, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 7, 2020 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@radissonusa.com. Also on November 16, 2020, 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 December 14, 2020, 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 owns and operates more than 1,400 hotels in over 110 countries branded under several variations of the RADISSON trademark. Complainant has rights in the RADISSON mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 1971. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and is well known.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its RADISSON mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the geographic descriptor “usa” and the generic gTLD “.com” to the mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the RADISSON mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as Respondent use the disputed domain name to host hyperlinks in competition with Complainant. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent previously offered to sell the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to host hyperlinks that compete with Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights to the RADISSON mark prior to registering the disputed domain name by virtue of the famous nature of Complainant’s mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the mark RADISSON dating back to 1971.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2020.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to host hyperlinks in competition with 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 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirely and merely adds the geographic descriptor “usa” and the generic gTLD “.com”. Adding a geographic term and a gTLD to a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Franklin Covey Co. v. franklincoveykorea, FA 1774660 (Forum Apr. 11, 2018) (finding that the <franklincoveykorea.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the FRANKLIN COVEY mark, as “[t]he addition of a geographic term and a gTLD do not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorize Respondent to use its RADISSON mark in any way. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: when a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Dalton Massey”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to host hyperlinks in competition with Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to host commercial hyperlinks may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web page containing advertising links to products that compete with those of Complainant. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant alleges that Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name, but provides no evidence to indicate the price for the alleged offer to sell. This is not sufficient to establish bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to host hyperlinks that compete with Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to host competing hyperlinks can demonstrate bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum January 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s hosting of links to Complainant’s competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <radissonusa.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: December 15, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page