Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Jessica Viscusie / Choice Hotels International
Claim Number: FA2207002005835
Complainant is Choice Hotels International, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Diana S. Bae of ArentFox Schiff LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Jessica Viscusie / Choice Hotels International (“Respondent”), Illinois, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <choicehotelsinternational.org>, registered with Google LLC.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 26, 2022; the Forum received payment on July 26, 2022.
On July 27, 2022, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <choicehotelsinternational.org> domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 July 28, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 17, 2022 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@choicehotelsinternational.org. Also on July 28, 2022, 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 August 18, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <choicehotelsinternational.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <choicehotelsinternational.org> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <choicehotelsinternational.org> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant, Choice Hotels International, Inc., uses its CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL mark in connection with lodging services. Complainant holds a registration for the CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL mark with multiple trademark agencies, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,638,841, registered Oct. 22, 2002).
Respondent registered the <choicehotelsinternational.org> domain name on July 26, 2021, and uses it to pass off as Complainant and phish for personal information.
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”).
Respondent’s <choicehotelsinternational.org> domain name uses Complainant’s CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL mark and simply adds a gTLD. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant when considering whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a protected mark. See Abt Elecs., Inc. v. Ricks, FA 904239 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (“The Panel also finds that Respondent’s <abt.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s ABT mark since addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) is irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <choicehotelsinternational.org> domain name is identical to Complainant’s CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <choicehotelsinternational.org> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL mark. Respondent’s identity was initially shielded by a privacy service but then confirmed as “Jessica Viscusie / Choice Hotels International.” There is no evidence in the record to corroborate Respondent’s reference to “Choice International Hotels” in the name used to register the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM , FA 740335 (Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record); see also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).
Complainant further argues that Respondent uses the <choicehotelsinternational.org> domain name in order to pass off as Complainant. Impersonating a complainant in a disputed domain name’s resolving webpage is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). Complainant demonstrates that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant through the prominent use of Complainant’s mark and logo and to purport to offer hotel management school services. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <choicehotelsinternational.org> domain name in a bad faith attempt to perpetuate a phishing scheme. Using a disputed domain name to phish for information is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) (“[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Complainant provides evidence showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attempt to extract valuable personal information from users through a “Get Quote” feature. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent used and registered the domain name in order to conduct a phishing scheme in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the <choicehotelsinternational.org> domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL mark, arguing that its mark is well-known and that Respondent attempted to pass itself off as Complainant. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”); see also Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum Jan. 5, 2018) (“[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.”)
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <choicehotelsinternational.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: August 19, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page