DECISION

 

CR License, LLC v. John Johnson

Claim Number: FA2502002139668

 

PARTIES

Complainant is CR License, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Jennifer A. Van Kirk of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Arizona, USA. Respondent is John Johnson ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <canyonranchloscabosmexico.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 11, 2025; Forum received payment on February 11, 2025.

 

On February 11, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <canyonranchloscabosmexico.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 February 17, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 10, 2025 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@canyonranchloscabosmexico.com. Also on February 17, 2025, 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 March 11, 2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark CANYON RANCH, registered since 1985, inter alia, in the USA for fitness resort services with first use recorded as 1979.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2022 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark adding only the generic place name 'Los Cabos Mexico' and the gTLD .com neither of which prevents said confusing similarity.

 

The Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and has not been authorised by the Complainant.

 

The Domain Name has been used for a site offering competing services to the Complainant using the Complainant's mark, including in its masthead, impersonating the Complainant for likely phishing. The services offered via Respondent's website were fake. Contact details were false and purported five-star reviews repeated the same placeholder text.  The site offers holidays in 'Mykonos' an island in Greece, but showed a map of Mexico.

 

Accordingly the Respondent's use was not a bona fide offering of services and/or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. It was registration and use in bad faith diverting and deceiving Internet users for commercial gain with fake services disrupting the Complainant's business.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark CANYON RANCH, registered since 1985 , inter alia, in the USA for fitness resort services with first use recorded as 1979.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2022 offered competing services to the Complainant using the Complainant's mark, including in its masthead. Contact details on the web site were false and purported five star reviews repeated the same placeholder text. The site offered holidays in 'Mykonos' an island in Greece, but showed a map of Mexico.

 

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 Domain Name registered in 2022 consists of the Complainant's CANYON RANCH mark (registered, inter alia, in the USA since 1985 and used since at least 1979 for fitness resort services) the generic geographical term 'Los Cabos Mexico' and the gTLD .com.

 

Adding a generic term and a gTLD to a complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between that mark and a domain name. 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)). The Panel finds that adding the generic place name 'Los Cabos, Mexico' and the gTLD .com does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark.

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

 

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).

 

The web site attached to the Domain Name purported to offer competing services to the Complainant using the Complainant's mark including in its masthead.  It did not make it clear that there is no connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use was confusing. (See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise services which competed with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services).  

 

False reviews, contact details and inconsistent offering of Greek holidays with Mexican maps on the Respondent's site suggested the services offered by the Respondent were likely to be fake. As such they could not have amounted to the bona fide offering of goods and services and is not a legitimate non commercial or fair use. See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) ("a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use").

 

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or provided any explanation to counter the allegation that the web site is offering fake services or phishing. The Respondent has not rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein.

 

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In the opinion of the Panel the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent's site was confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably have believed it was connected to or approved by the Complainant as it used the Complainant's mark (distinctive for fitness resort services) including in its masthead to offer competing services.

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and services offered on it under Policy 4 (b)(iv) likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant under Policy 4 (b)(iii). See Allianz of AM. Corp v Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website).

 

The Panel is entitled to draw adverse inferences from the lack of response from the Respondent. Specifically there has been no attempt to counter the serious allegation that the services offered by the Respondent were fake (due to false review, contact details and glaring inconsistencies of offering Greek holidays with Mexican maps) and the site appeared

to be phishing. Phishing conduct is evidence of bad faith registration and use within the Policy 4 (a)(iii). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc v LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1625750 (Forum July 17, 2015).

 

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

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

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: March 17, 2025