DECISION

 

Expedia, Inc. v. Halo Travel Group / Aaerm Global Services

Claim Number: FA2401002079528

PARTIES

Complainant is Expedia, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David M. Kelly of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Halo Travel Group / Aaerm Global Services ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <expediaaero.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 17, 2024; Forum received payment on January 17, 2024.

 

On January 17, 2024, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <expediaaero.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 January 18, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 7, 2024 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@expediaaero.com. Also on January 18, 2024, 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 February 8, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows:

 

Complainant, Expedia, Inc., offers full-service online travel agencies through its Expedia-branded websites.

 

Complainant asserts rights to the EXPEDIA mark based upon the mark's registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") as well as with other registrations worldwide.

 

Respondent's <expediaaero.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it contains Complainant's EXPEDIA mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive term "aero" and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com" to form the at-issue domain name.

 

Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <expediaaero.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's EXPEDIA mark and is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and to address a website advertising and/or offering directly competing travel services.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <expediaaero.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain name for commercial gain by competing with Complainant's business. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the EXPEDIA mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in EXPEDIA.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use Complainant's EXPEDIA mark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in EXPEDIA.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass off as Complainant for a commercial website advertising and/or offering directly competing travel-related services, specifically, flight reservations, which are identical to the travel services that Expedia has long offered under its EXPEDIA mark.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant's registration of the EXPEDIA mark with the USPTO, as well as with any other bona fide trademark registration worldwide, sufficiently demonstrates Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.").

 

Respondent's <expediaaero.com> domain name is composed of Complainant's entire EXPEDIA trademark followed by the suggestive generic term "aero" with all followed by the top-level domain name ".com." The differences between Complainant's trademark and Respondent's domain name do nothing to distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant's trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <expediaaero.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's EXPEDIA trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name's registrant as "Halo Travel Group / Aaerm Global Services" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <expediaaero.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <expediaaero.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) (concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where "the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as "Bhawana Chandel," and no information in the record shows that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant's mark in any way.").

 

Respondent uses its at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and address a website pretending to be affiliated with Complainant that offers advertising or services which compete with Complainant. Respondent's use of <expediaaero.com>  to pass off as Complainant and operate a website competing with Complainant indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(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); see also, Carey Int'l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) (holding that the respondent's use of disputed domain names to market competing limousine services was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), as the respondent was appropriating the complainant's CAREY mark in order to profit from the mark).

 

Given the forgoing Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent's lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is evidence from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name addresses Respondent's <expediaaero.com> website. There Respondent, under its Expedia Aero banner, offers travel-related services that directly compete with Complainant, specifically, flight reservations, which are identical to the travel services that Expedia has long offered under its EXPEDIA mark. The domain name and its related website thereby deceive internet users into falsely believing that they are sponsored by Complainant. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name in this manner is disruptive to Complainant's business and designed to attract internet users to Respondent's website by capitalizing on the confusion that Respondent intentionally created between <expediaaero.com> and Complainant's EXPEDIA trademark. Respondent's use of the <expediaaero.com> domain name in this manner demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <expediaaero.com> under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent's registration and use of the at-issue domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant's website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also, ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA 1761403 (Forum December 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting internet users from Complainant's website to Respondent's website where it offered competing printer products).

 

Moreover, Respondent registered the <expediaaero.com> domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in EXPEDIA. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in EXPEDIA is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's trademark and from Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name to confuse internet users as to the domain name's affiliation in furtherance of its <expediaaero.com> travel website. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's EXPEDIA trademark additionally indicates Respondent's bad faith under the Policy. See 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 had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed the disputed domain name").

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <expediaaero.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: February 8, 2024