DECISION

 

Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Worldwide Corporation v. manmerlin manmerlin / Irene T Pickens

Claim Number: FA2507002168698

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Worldwide Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Jeanette Eriksson of FairWinds Partners LLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is manmerlin manmerlin / Irene T Pickens ("Respondent"), New Jersey, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <marriott-bonvoy.org>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 30, 2025; Forum received payment on July 30, 2025.

 

On July 30, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <marriott-bonvoy.org> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 25, 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@marriott-bonvoy.org. Also on August 5, 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 August 26, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e). UDRP Rule 3(a) states, "Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint."  Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint."

 

Previous panels have interpreted Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int'l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:

 

It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.

 

In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained in the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark.

 

There are two Complainants in this matter: Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Worldwide Corporation; the former is the parent company of the latter. The Panel finds that this is a sufficient nexus between the Complainants, and elects to treat them as a single entity in this proceeding, collectively referred to as "Complainant." 

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1.       Respondent's <marriott-bonvoy.org> is confusingly similar to Complainant's MARRIOTT BONVOY mark.

 

2.       Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <marriott-bonvoy.org> domain name.

 

3.       Respondent registered and uses the <marriott-bonvoy.org> domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent did not file a Response.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant operates a hotel chain and holds a registration for its MARRIOTT BONVOY mark, used in connection with its loyalty program, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 6,148,202, registered on September 8, 2020).

 

Respondent registered the <marriott-bonvoy.org> domain name on February 17, 2025, and uses it to redirect users to Complainant's official website.

 

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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the MARRIOTT BONVOY mark based on registration with the USPTO.  See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that Complainant's registration of the BROOKS mark with the USPTO sufficiently conferred its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <marriott-bonvoy.org> domain name uses the MARRIOTT BONVOY mark and simply adds a hyphen and the ".org" TLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) ("Respondent's <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ANT FINANCIAL mark.  It incorporates the mark entirely.  It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms "investor relations," and the ".com" gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").  The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <marriott-bonvoy.org> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's MARRIOTT BONVOY mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show 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.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <marriott-bonvoy.org> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and is not authorized to use the MARRIOTT BONVOY mark. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "manmerlin manmerlin / Irene T Pickens". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).

 

Complainant also contends that Respondent is not using the <marriott-bonvoy.org> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because it uses the domain name to redirect users to Complainant's own website. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name to redirect internet users does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Docler IP S.à r.l., DuoDecad IT Services Luxembourg S.à r.l., WebMindLicenses Korlátolt Felelösségü Társaság v. Peter Williams, D2017-0953 (WIPO July 14, 2017) (finding that "the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to redirect users to the Complainant's website does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use").  Complainant provides screenshots showing that the disputed domain name resolves to Complainant's website, no doubt for affiliate revenue. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant also argues that Respondent registered and uses the <marriott-bonvoy.org> domain name in bad faith by diverting internet users to Complainant's website for affiliate revenue. Using a disputed domain name to redirect users for a respondent's commercial gain is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Deluxe Corp. v. Dallas Internet, FA 105216 (Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (finding the respondent registered and used the <deluxeform.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by redirecting its users to the complainant's <deluxeforms.com> domain name, thus receiving a commission from the complainant through its affiliate program).  The Panel thus finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent registered the <marriott-bonvoy.org> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MARRIOTT BONVOY mark. The Panel agrees, noting the worldwide fame of the MARRIOTT BONVOY mark, and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Worldwide Corporation v. huang fei hong / Chicago, FA 2141786 (Forum Mar. 20, 2025) ("The Panel also finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the well-known MARRIOTT BONVOY mark.").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <marriott-bonvoy.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: August 28, 2025