DECISION

 

Loew's Hotels, Inc. v. san zhang san / zhang sansan

Claim Number: FA2403002090671

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Loew's Hotels, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Natasha Reed of Foley Hoag LLP, United States. Respondent is san zhang san / zhang sansan ("Respondent"), Sudan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <jerseycityloews.com>, registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com.

 

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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 27, 2024; Forum received payment on March 27, 2024.

 

On March 27, 2024, GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com confirmed by email to Forum that the <jerseycityloews.com> domain name is registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com 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 28, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 17, 2024 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@jerseycityloews.com. Also on March 28, 2024, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 April 18, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 operates hotels and resorts across the United States and Canada. Complainant and its affiliates and predecessors have used the LOEWS and LOEWS HOTELS marks to promote these properties and related goods and services since at least 1962. Complainant owns longstanding trademark registrations for LOEWS in standard character form and related marks in the United States and other jurisdictions.

 

The disputed domain name <jerseycityloews.com> was registered in July 2023. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name does not resolve to a website. Complainant states that it previously resolved to a website for an unrelated Chinese equipment or manufacturing business. Complainant states further that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, is not an agent or licensee of Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <jerseycityloews.com> is confusingly similar to its LOEWS mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <jerseycityloews.com> incorporates Complainant's registered LOEWS trademark, adding the geographic term "Jersey City" (without the space) and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Loew's Hotels, Inc. v. Li Fa, FA 2076761 (Forum Jan. 18, 2024) (finding <loewsjerseycity.com> confusingly similar to LOEWS). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. There is no evidence of active use of the domain name or of preparations for such use. The only indication of prior use involved attracting Internet users to an unrelated business, a use that is unlikely to give rise to rights or legitimate interests. See, e.g., Workday, Inc. v. Aiden Harrison, FA 2083953 (Forum Mar. 14, 2024) (finding lack of rights or interests in domain name based upon lack of evidence of active use or preparations for use); Loew's Hotels, Inc. v. Li Fa, supra (finding lack of rights or interests where domain name was used to direct users to a website offering sports betting entertainment services). 

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent used a privacy registration service and incomplete and likely fictitious underlying registration information to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's mark. Respondent does not appear to be engaged in any active use of the domain name, and as noted above the only indication of prior use only involved attracting Internet users to an unrelated business. Nor has Respondent come forward with any explanation for the selection of the name or its intended use. Although it is certainly conceivable that "Jersey City Loews" could refer to something unrelated to Complainant and its mark, the Panel declines to speculate in that regard. The Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name intending to use it in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant and its mark, perhaps in support of a fraudulent scheme, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain name for that purpose. See, e.g., Workday, Inc. v. Aiden Harrison, supra (inferring bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Loew's Hotels, Inc. v. Li Fa, supra (same). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: April 18, 2024