Ramada International, Inc. and Ramada Worldwide, Inc. v. jiang hong jun
Claim Number: FA2302002033790
Complainant is Ramada International, Inc. and Ramada Worldwide, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Susan L. Crane, New Jersey, USA. Respondent is jiang hong jun (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ramada77.com>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn).
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 Forum electronically on February 28, 2023; Forum received payment on February 28, 2023. The Complaint was submitted in English.
On March 2, 2023, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ramada77.com> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) 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 March 3, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 23, 2023 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@ramada77.com. Also on March 3, 2023, the Chinese and English language 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 March 30, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS
The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e). UDRP Rule 3(a) states, “Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
Previous panels have interpreted the 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.
There are two Complainants in this matter: Ramada International, Inc. and Ramada Worldwide, Inc. Ramada International, Inc. and Ramada Worldwide, Inc. are both sister subsidiaries of Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc. Ramada International is the owner of the RAMADA mark and Ramada Worldwide sublicenses the mark to hotel franchisees and others in the United States. The Panel finds that this is a sufficient link between the named Complainants and they will be collectively referred to as “Complainant.”
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that this proceeding will be conducted in English, since the website resolving from the disputed domain name uses the English language. See The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009) (panel exercising discretion in deciding that the language of the proceedings advance in English, contrary to the Registration Agreement, based on evidence that respondent has command of the language).
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <ramada77.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RAMADA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ramada77.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <ramada77.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant offers franchised lodging services and holds a registration for the RAMADA mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 849,591 registered May 21, 1968).
Respondent registered the <ramada77.com> domain name on August 8, 2022, and uses it to pass off as Complainant and offer gambling services.
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 Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the RAMADA mark based on the registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that Complainant’s registration of the BROOKS mark with the USPTO sufficiently conferred its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <ramada77.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s RAMADA mark and simply adds the number “77” and the “.com” gTLD. The addition of a gTLD and a number fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Novartis AG v. boggs, william, FA 1570988 (Forum Aug. 25, 2014) (finding that the <freshlook2.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s FRESHLOOK mark because the domain name contained the mark in its entirety and merely added the number “2”); see also Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Antigua Domains, FA 1073020 (Forum Oct. 17, 2007) (“[T]he inclusion of the generic top-level domain ‘.com’ is inconsequential to the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis, as a top-level domain is required of all domain names.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <ramada77.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RAMADA 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 <ramada77.com> domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the RAMADA mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “jiang hong jun”. 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 Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Mohamed elkassaby, FA 1801815 (Forum Sep. 17, 2018) (“The WHOIS lists “Mohamed elkassaby” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the domain name resolves to a page that offers gambling services, which are also offered by third party vendors at Complainant’s locations. Using a disputed domain name to redirect users to competing services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website that offered services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks). Complainant provides evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage displaying gambling services and Complainant’s RAMADA mark. 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 <ramada77.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business. Using a disputed domain name to redirect consumers to competing goods or services can be evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. MCM Tours, Inc., FA 444510 (Forum May 6, 2005) (“The Respondent is a travel agency and thus operates in the same business as the Complainant. The parties can therefore be considered as competitors. The Panel thus finds that the Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, which constitutes evidence of registration and use in bad faith under Policy 4(b)(iii).”). Therefore, the Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the <ramada77.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent attempts to take advantage of confusion with Complainant’s well-known mark to attract Internet users to its competing website for commercial gain. The Panel agrees and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (“The Panel finds such use to constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), because [r]espondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the <metropolitanlife.us> domain name and Complainant’s METLIFE mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark.”)
Complainant also argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the RAMADA mark due to the notoriety of the mark. The Panel agrees and finds that this is additional evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See also Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
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 <ramada77.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: March 31, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page