DECISION

 

Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. mark kulekci

Claim Number: FA2407002107262

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Choice Hotels International, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Hannah Lutz of TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is mark kulekci ("Respondent"), New York, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <radissonhotelsnewyork.com>, registered with Wix.com Ltd.

 

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.

 

 Hon. Karl v. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 22, 2024; Forum received payment on July 22, 2024.

 

On July 30, 2024, Wix.com Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <radissonhotelsnewyork.com> domain name is registered with Wix.com Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wix.com Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wix.com Ltd. 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 August 5, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 26, 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@radissonhotelsnewyork.com. Also on August 5, 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 August 27, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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, Choice Hotels International, Inc., through its affiliates, licensees, and franchisees, owns and operates more than 600 hotels in more than a dozen countries throughout the Americas, branded under several variations of the famous RADISSON® trademark.

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered RADISSON mark in its entirety.

 

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in its disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the mark. Respondent has not used or prepared to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name to cause confusion with Complainant and to scam the public.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

For the reasons set forth below, based upon the uncontested allegations and evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant is entitled to the requested relief of transfer of the <radissonhotelsnewyork.com> domain name.

 

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

Complainant has many registrations of the RADISSON mark, including registration #920862 with the USTPO, dated September 21, 1971. Complainant's registration of the RADISSON mark with the United States establishes Complainant's rights in the mark, as "registration of a mark with a legitimate governmental authority is sufficient under the Policy to allow a rebuttable presumption of rights in the mark." See Target Brands, Inc. v JK Internet Services, FA 349108 (Forum Dec. 14, 2004). The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's registered trademark. The disputed domain name begins with the RADISSON mark in its entirety adding the generic term "hotels," and the geographic descriptor "new york," and the generic TLD ".com" These additions do not significantly distinguish the domain name. The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("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 that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's RADISSON mark.

 

Complainant has proved this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that 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"). The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.

 

Complaint argues that Respondent has not been licensed, contracted, or otherwise permitted by the Complainant in any way to use the RADISSON mark or to apply for any domain name incorporating the RADISSON mark, nor has the Complainant acquiesced in any way to such use or application of the RADISSON mark by the Respondent. There is no evidence of fair use and there is no evidence that the Respondent is using or plans to use the RADISSON mark or the domain name incorporating the RADISSON mark for a bona fide offering of goods or services. Complainant also argues, and has submitted evidence, that Respondent has engaged in a phishing scheme. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 2.1 provides:

While the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP. 

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has not met the burden and finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

 

Complainant has proved this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the RADISSON mark when it registered the disputed domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's RADISSON mark is evident from the fame of Complainant's mark, Respondent's attempt to pass off as Complainant, and Respondent prior registration of a domain using Complainant's RADISSON mark in bad faith. Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the RADISSON mark shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name pursuant to 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 domain name); see also, Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy/Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) ("Complainant contends Respondent's appropriation of Complainant's trademark was a clear intent to trade upon Complainant's reputation and goodwill in order to confuse Internet users).

 

The Panel finds, from Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's mark and Respondent prior registration of a domain using Complainant's RADISSON mark that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.

 

Complainant has proved this element.

 

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 <radissonhotelsnewyork.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) Panelist

September 5, 2024