DECISION

 

Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Worldwide Corporation v. Chavez Theresa / Theresa W Chavez

Claim Number: FA2601002198783

 

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 Chavez Theresa / Theresa W Chavez ("Respondent"), Michigan, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <marriottvacationclub.shop>, registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc.

 

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.

 

Petter Rindforth as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 8, 2026; Forum received payment on January 8, 2026.

 

On January 9, 2026, Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <marriottvacationclub.shop> domain name is registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc 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 January 9, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 29, 2026 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@marriottvacationclub.shop. Also on January 9, 2026, 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 January 30, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Petter Rindforth 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

In the instant proceedings, there are two Complainants. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that "[a]ny 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." 

 

The two Complainants in this case are: i) Marriott International, Inc. and ii) Marriott Worldwide Corporation.

 

The Complainant Marriott International, Inc. is the parent company of the Complainant Marriott Worldwide Corporation. 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."

 

The Panel accepts that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, and will therefore hereafter – if not specifically noted otherwise – refer to them in singular as "the Complainant".

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant own and enforce the distinctive MARRIOTT and MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB trademarks. Dating its origin back to 1927, Complainant today operate the largest and one of the most well-known hotel and resort chains in the world with nearly 9,500 properties in 144 countries worldwide. Complainants own over 30 hotel brands. MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB is, since 2011, the name of Complainants' highly successful global timeshare program. Today, the program has more than 400,000 owners and comprises around 70 properties throughout, e.g., the U.S., Caribbean, Mexico, Central America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. The MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB trademarks have become globally well-known, especially in the hospitality industry.

 

The second level of the <marriottvacationclub.shop> domain name is identical, on its face, to Complainants' MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB trdemark, and confusingly similar to Complainants' famous MARRIOTT trademark. Respondent deliberately creates confusion by using an identical copy of Complainants' MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB trademark, merely adding the ".shop" gTLD.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name. Respondent's actions are not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Respondent is not affiliated with, nor authorized by Complainant to use the MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB trademarks. Respondent used the disputed domain name for a webshop where unrelated products were offered for sale, including women's clothing and woodworking documents. All circumstances in the case strongly suggest that the Respondent intentionally targeted the MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB trademarks and used the disputed domain name to divert consumers looking for the official website for the MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB brand or for Complainant's official online retail store. Even more disturbingly, it is highly likely that Respondent used the disputed domain name for a phishing scam, seeking to fraudulently and illegally lure consumers seeking Complainants' or their Licensee's services into disclosing login credentials and personal information through login and checkout pages on the website to which the disputed domain name resolved.

 

At the time of filing this Complaint, the disputed domain name no longer resolves to any website but rather displays an error page. This change took place recently, after Respondent was placed on notice of the dispute, by Complainant's cease and desist letters. Neither Respondent's previous use of the disputed domain name, nor the current non-resolving state of the disputed domain name, amounts to bona fide, legitimate or fair use.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent was put on actual notice of Complainants' rights in the MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB trademarks through the extensive use to which the trademarks have been put, by Complainants and their Licensee, long predating the creation date of the disputed domain name. The extraordinary reputation of Complainants' trademarks combined with Respondent's pattern of bad faith registrations demonstrates, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Respondent intentionally registered and used the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainants' trademarks and in bad faith.

 

Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain, so its actions do not fall within Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Respondent has been using a domain name that is identical to Complainants' MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB trademark to attract internet traffic to its own website and for what is likely a phishing scam, collecting personal information through login fields that can later be either used for further phishing, sold to a third-party, or other bad faith activity. The evidence in this case leads to the only reasonable conclusion that the disputed domain name is derived from Complainants' MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB trademarks and intended to evoke Complainants' MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB brand.

 

Furthermore, Respondent has been the respondent in numerous UDRP cases in which the disputed domain name in each case has been ordered to be transferred to the respective complainant. The fact that Respondent is a habitual cybersquatter with a long history of registering domain names confusingly similar to trademarks owned by others is highly relevant to the consideration of bad faith in the present case since it shows that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct designed to infringe upon the trademarks of others and is well-familiar with the practice of leveraging the fame of trademarks to earn revenue in fraudulent ways.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of a number of national and international trademark registrations around the world of the trademark/s MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB and MARRIOTT, including but not limited to:

 

-       U.S. national trademark registration No. 3,445,053 MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB (word), registered June 10, 2008 in Intl. Class 36;

-       Mexican National Trademark Registration No. 897962 MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB (word), registered August 30, 2005 in Intl. Class 36; and

-       European Union trade mark No. 005145727 MARRIOTT (word), registered June 21, 2007 in Int. Classes 35, 36 and 37.

 

The disputed domain name <marriottvacationclub.shop> was registered on April 8, 2025.

 

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 Complainant asserts rights in the MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB trademark based upon the registration of the trademark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,445,053 registered June 10, 2008), as well as other regional/national trademark authorities, including the plain MARRIOTT trademark within the European Union.

 

Registration of a trademark with the USPTO or EUIPO is sufficient to establish rights in a trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Here, Complainant has provided the Panel with copies of its registration for the trademark in a USA and other countries/regions. Therefore, the Panel find that Complainant has rights in the trademarks per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent's <marriottvacationclub.shop> domain name is domain name is identical, on its face, to Complainants' MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB trademark. The Panel tends to basically agree with Complainant's conclusion. For purely technical reasons, a multi-word trademark can only be written with hyphens between the words, or as in this case, written together into one word as a domain name. Further the addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Novartis AG v. ruanhuanhuan, FA 1574397 (Forum Sept. 19, 2014) (finding that the <alcon.club> domain name is confusingly similar to the ALCON mark, as the addition of the top-level domain ".club" is not enough to defeat the identical nature of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Here, the disputed domain name contains the MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB trademark in its entirety while adding  ".shop" gTLD. Therefore, the Panel find that the disputed domain name is almost identical – and indeed confusingly similar - to Complainant's trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.").

 

Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <marriottvacationclub.shop> domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Guardair Corporation v. Pablo Palermo, FA 1571060 (Forum Aug. 28, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <guardair.com> domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information lists "Pablo Palermo" as registrant of the disputed domain name).  In addition, a lack of authorization to use a complainant's trademark may also indicate that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain name where the WHOIS information listed Respondent as "Operi Manaha," and nothing else in the record suggested Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX mark). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Chavez Theresa / Theresa W Chavez". Complainant further asserts it has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use Complainant's MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB trademark. Therefore, the Panel find that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the disputed domain name:

 

-       Initially was used for a web shop where unrelated products were offered for sale,

-       Initially was for a phishing scam, and

-       Is currently linked to an "error page" – a change made by Respondent after receiving the initial warning letter on behalf of the Complainant.

 

Based on the above, the Panel find that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). 

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, hereby referring to the fact Complainant's trademark MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB is distinctive and well-known, and that Respondent has a pattern of bad faith registrations.

 

Previous findings of bad faith registration of a domain name may be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) ("The record contains evidence of Respondents previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)."). See also Abbott Laboratories v. Milen Radumilo, FA 1824865 (Forum Feb. 11, 2019) ("Respondent has been subject to a number of adverse decisions suggesting a pattern of conduct under Policy 4(b)(ii).").

 

Further, use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known mark can be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant's well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain).

 

As noted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name as per today seems to be inactive. However, lack of active use has no effect in supporting Respondent in this case. See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA 1608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) ("Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

Altogether, the Panel agrees with Complainant's conclusions, and find that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).

 

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 <marriottvacationclub.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Petter Rindforth, Panelist

Dated: February 13, 2026