DECISION

 

Airbnb, Inc. v. Susan Souglas

Claim Number: FA2502002142184

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Airbnb, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David K. Caplan of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Susan Souglas ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <airbnbexpert.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.

 

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

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 26, 2025; Forum received payment on February 26, 2025.

 

On February 26, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <airbnbexpert.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 March 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 24, 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@airbnbexpert.com. Also on March 3, 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 25, 2025, 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 is a trusted community marketplace for people to list, discover, and book accommodations. Complainant has more than 8 million listings in more than 100,000 cities and towns and over 220 countries and regions.

 

The disputed domain name, registered March 5, 2015, incorporates Complaint's entire AIRBNB mark and differs only by the addition of the generic term "expert," and the ".com" gTLD.

 

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 its AIRBNB 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 to confuse consumers as to its connection with Complainant. There is no legitimate reason for Respondent's registration and use of the domain name.

 

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 <airbnbexpert.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 or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has many registrations of the AIRBNB mark, including Registration No. 3,971,784, registered May 31, 2011, with the USPTO. Complainant's registration of the AIRBNB mark with the United States and other countries 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 mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent's AIRBNB mark is confusingly similar to the AIRBNB mark because it incorporates that mark completely, while merely adding the generic term "expert"' and the ".com" gTLD. Adding a generic or descriptive term to a complainant's mark does not distinguish a disputed domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See HomeAway.com, Inc. v. gterg dfgedqw, bfgdfd, D2023-5055 (WIPO Feb. 09, 2024) (finding that "the addition of other terms, [such as] "expert" . . . does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Names and the mark" and transferring vrboexpert-ava.com); Additionally, "it is a well-established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Isleworth Land Co. v Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Forum Sept. 27, 2002). The Panel finds that Respondent's <airbnbexpert.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the AIRBNB mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

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 AIRBNB mark or to apply for any domain name incorporating the AIRBNB mark, nor has the Complainant acquiesced in any way to such use or application of the AIRBNB 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 AIRBNB mark or the domain name incorporating the AIRBNB mark for a bona fide offering of goods or services. 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

There is no possible use that Respondent could make of this domain name that would not be in bad faith. As held in the case of Morgan Stanley v. Zhang Wei, FA 2037470 (Forum Apr. 27, 2023):

When a mark is especially well known, Panels have held that no possible use of the mark by someone other than its owner can be in good faith. See Harrods Ltd. v. Harrod's Closet, D2001-1027 (WIPO Sept. 28, 2001) (finding that where a mark is so "obviously connected with well-known products," its very use by someone with no connection to these products can evidence opportunistic bad faith); see also Kraft Foods (Norway) v. Wide, D2000-0911 (WIPO Sept. 23, 2000) ("[T]he fact that Respondent chosen [sic] to register a well-known mark to which [it] has no connections or rights indicates that [it] was in bad faith when registering the domain name at issue.").

Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the AIRBNB mark when it registered the disputed domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's AIRBNB mark is evident from the fame of Complainant's mark and the contents of the resolving website. See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); See also Airbnb, Inc. v. Terry McDaniel, FA 1737771 (Forum July 26, 2017) ("In light of the domain name's overt inclusion of Complainant's well know[n] mark, it appears that Respondent's intent in registering and using the domain name was to capitalize on the goodwill associated with the AIRBNB trademark, rather than for some benign reason.").

 

The Panel finds, from the fame of the Complainant's mark, Respondent's knowledge of the mark, and the use made of the disputed domain name, 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 <airbnbexpert.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) Panelist

April 3, 2025