Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Worldwide Corporation v. Gurias Hadoukas
Claim Number: FA2211002019109
Complainant is Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Worldwide Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Georges Nahitchevansky of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Gurias Hadoukas (“Respondent”), Lithuania.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <login-marviott.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with NameSilo, LLC.
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 Panelist in this proceeding.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 6, 2022; Forum received payment on November 6, 2022.
On November 6, 2022, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <login-marviott.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 9, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 29, 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@login-marviott.com. Also on November 9, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 6, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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.
Previous panels have interpreted Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:
It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.
In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark.
The Panel has reviewed the Complaint and is satisfied that that Marriott Worldwide Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Marriott International, Inc. and that both Complainants own registrations for the MARRIOTT mark. This is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants such that they should be treated as a single entity in this proceeding referred to in the singular, as “Complainant”.
A. Complainant
Complainant is an international provider of hotel and hospitality services. Complainant has rights in the MARRIOTT mark through numerous U.S. and international trademark registrations (e.g., United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Reg. No. 899,900, registered on September 29, 1970). Respondent’s <login-marviott.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the MARRIOTT mark because it consists of a misspelling of the MARRIOTT mark and adds a hyphen and the word “login”, along with the “.com” a generic top-level-domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <login-marviott.com> domain name since Complainant has no relationship with Respondent and has never permitted Respondent to use the MARRIOTT mark. Respondent is also not commonly known by the Domain Name, which was registered with a privacy service. Respondent also does not use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead phishes for user information on the Domain Name’s resolving website.
Respondent also registered and uses the <login-marviott.com> domain name in bad faith by using the confusingly similar domain name and fraudulent website to pass off as Complainant for commercial gain. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MARRIOTT mark prior to registration of the Domain Name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the MARRIOTT mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARRIOTT mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name 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 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”).
Complainant has rights in the MARRIOTT mark based on registration with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 899,900, registered on September 29, 1970). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).”).
The Panel finds that the <login-marviott.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARRIOTT mark as it consists of a minor misspelling of the MARRIOTT mark (“v” for “r”) and adds the word “login”, along with the “.com” gTLD. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a generic word and a gTLD to a minor misspelling of a trade mark is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.); see also Western Alliance Bancorporation v. James Brandon, FA 1783001 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“Respondent’s <westernalliancebcorporation.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WESTERN ALLIANCE BANCORPORATION mark because it merely appends the gTLD ‘.info’ to a misspelled version of Complainant’s mark.”); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the MARRIOTT mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “Gurias Hadoukas” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Name resolves to a website that reproduces Complainant’s MARRIOTT and BONVOY marks. It contained a login section where clients were directed to provide their Marriott Bonvoy account number and passwords, which if provided would enable Respondent to log into their accounts with Complainant. Such conduct is best characterized as “phishing”. Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to impersonate Complainant for the purpose of engaging in a phishing scheme to acquire personal and confidential information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Caroline Alves Maia, FA 1796113 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) (finding the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the domain name because it used the name to resolve to a website virtually identical to the complainant’s to prompt users to enter their login information so that the respondent may gain access to that customer’s cryptocurrency account); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. ruth weinstein, FA 1770352 (Forum Mar. 7, 2018) (“Use of a disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as a complainant and to conduct a phishing scheme is indicative of a failure to use said domain name in connection with a bona fide offer of goods and services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or otherwise fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”)
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, July 8, 2022, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s MARRIOTT mark. The Respondent used the Domain Name to pass itself off as Complainant for financial gain or to disrupt Complainant’s business. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own, this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent used the Domain Name to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Use of a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1506001622862 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent’s apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a ‘phishing’ scheme further established its bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to 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 <login-marviott.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: December 7, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page