DECISION

 

RealTime Reservation LLC v. Way Info

Claim Number: FA2603002212528

 

PARTIES

Complainant is RealTime Reservation LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Karin Segall of Leason Ellis LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Way Info ("Respondent"), represented by Cason Liles, Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <realtimereservations.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

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

 

Fernando Triana, Esq., as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 26, 2026; Forum received payment on March 26, 2026.

 

On March 26, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the disputed domain name <realtimereservations.com> 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 27, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 16, 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@realtimereservations.com. Also on March 27, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 14, 2026.

 

On April 16, 2026, Complainant filed an Additional Submission.

 

On April 15, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Fernando Triana, Esq., 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: PRIOR UDRP PROCEEDING BETWEEN PARTIES

Complainant stated that this proceeding is a refiling. Once reviewed concerning the disputed domain name <realtimereservations.com>, there is a proceeding with Claim Number: FA2311002071701, RealTime Reservation LLC v. Way Info, in which the Panel decided that RealTime Reservation LLC did "not established rights in the REALTIME RESERVATION mark", declining from analyzing "the other two elements of the Policy".

 

Concerning refiled cases WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, ("WIPO Overview 3.1"), section 4.18., states the following:

 

"Panels have accepted refiled complaints only in highly limited circumstances such as (i) when the complainant establishes that legally relevant developments, that would directly and materially impact the basis for the prior denial, have occurred since the original UDRP decision; (ii) a breach of natural justice or of due process has objectively occurred; (iii) where serious misconduct in the original case (such as perjured evidence) that influenced the outcome is subsequently identified; (iv) where new material evidence related to the basis for the prior denial that was reasonably unavailable to the complainant during the original case is presented; or (v) where the case has previously been decided (including termination orders) expressly on a "without prejudice" basis.

In the refiling itself, a complainant must clearly indicate the new material grounds it believes would justify acceptance of the refiled complaint, as noted above".

 

Consequently, the Panel must proceed to verify whether in this case any of the circumstances quoted above occurred.

 

Complainant alleges that since the prior Decision, Complainant has obtained a trademark registration for REALTIME RESERVATION. Once verified, Exhibit I to the Complaint includes the trademark certificate from the USPTO for registration No. 8,083,287 corresponding to the trademark REALTIME RESERVATION in international class 42.

 

Thus, this Panel concludes that Complainant has established legally relevant developments, that directly and materially impact the basis for the prior denial, have occurred since the original UDRP decision.

        

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.       Complainant

a.       This is a refiled Complaint following a previous proceeding where the panel found Complainant's trademark lacked distinctiveness.

b.       Complainant argues the case should be reheard because they have since obtained a federal trademark registration (U.S. Reg. No. 8,083,287) for "REALTIME RESERVATION," which constitutes new material evidence.

c.       The parties previously engaged in failed acquisition negotiations in 2022, after which the Respondent allegedly threatened to become a direct competitor.

d.       Complainant's federal registration serves as prima facie evidence of valid and protectable rights in the trademark.

e.       The disputed domain name <realtimereservations.com>, is identical to the trademark, with the only difference being the addition of the letter "s" (making it plural) and the ".com" gTLD.

f.       Complainant's own employees have already demonstrated the potential for confusion by accidentally typing the extra "s" and landing on the Respondent's site.

g.       Respondent has no legitimate interest because the disputed domain name is used to redirect traffic to a competing software platform, way.co.

h.       Such use is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services under UDRP policy.

i.       There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the name "RealTime Reservations".

j.       Respondent's use of the term is not descriptive, as their own primary website (way.co) does not use "real time reservations" to describe its services.

k.       The disputed domain name was registered with the primary intent of disrupting a competitor's business following the rejected acquisition offer.

l.       Respondent's website contains a specific landing page titled "RealTime Reservation Competitor" that compares the two services, which Complainant claims is a bad faith attempt to attract users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion.

m.       The registration occurred in October 2023, years after Complainant began using the trademark and after the parties' business discussions had already taken place.

 

B.       Respondent

a.       The Complaint should be dismissed because it is an attempt to relitigate a case the Complainant already lost in 2023.

b.       Complainant's federal trademark registration—obtained 14 months after the first loss—was "manufactured" specifically as a litigation tactic rather than being "newly discovered" evidence.

c.       Complainant could have filed for the trademark before the first proceeding but chose to rely on common law rights and lost.

d.       "realtime reservation" consists of common English words that directly describe the function of the services.

e.       The trademark registration was granted under Section 2(f) (acquired distinctiveness), not because the mark is inherently distinctive.

f.       Respondent highlights that the Complainant was forced to disclaim the word "RESERVATION" during the USPTO application process because the examiner found it generic for hospitality services.

g.       The term "real time reservations" is widely used by many hospitality technology providers to describe their software.

h.       Respondent is an active hospitality technology company that provides software for real-time guest experiences.

i.       The disputed domain name directly describes the Respondent's own services.

j.       Redirecting a descriptive domain to a primary business website (way.co) is considered a legitimate business use.

k.       Comparative advertising (the "vs." page) is a standard, lawful commercial practice in the software industry and does not constitute bad faith.

l.       The disputed domain name was registered because it describes the Respondent's services, not to target Complainant.

m.       The disputed domain name was registered in October 2023, which was 16 months before Complainant even filed its trademark application.

n.       It is impossible to register a domain name in bad faith against a mark that did not yet exist.

o.       The 2022 acquisition talks were standard business discussions and stating an intent to build a competing product is lawful competition, not a threat.

p.       Respondent formally requests a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

q.       Complainant is a sophisticated party using the UDRP process in bad faith to harass a legitimate competitor after already losing the dispute once.

 

C.       Complainant's Additional Submissions

a.       Obtaining a federal trademark registration after an initial proceeding is a legitimate development that qualifies as "newly discovered evidence" under UDRP precedent.

b.       The trademark registration is not merely "created" evidence; it is the result of an independent governmental determination by the USPTO.

c.       Respondent misrepresented the Households & Toiletries Mfg. Co. v. Kawar case, noting that the denial in that instance was based on a failure to prove bad faith, not the invalidity of new trademark registrations.

d.       Disclaiming the word "RESERVATION" does not weaken Complainant's rights, citing legal principles that marks must be compared in their entirety rather than by individual parts.

e.       The fact that the USPTO accepted five years of use as evidence of acquired distinctiveness—while having denied it in other cases like Louisiana Fish Fry—proves that the USPTO deemed this specific mark distinctive.

f.       Respondent's claim that the prior Panel found a "bona fide offering" as "patently false," noting the prior Panel explicitly declined to analyze that element.

g.       Respondent provided no evidence to support the claim that "comparison pages" are a standard practice for all SaaS companies.

h.       Using a mark identical to a competitor's to market competing products is inherently not a bona fide offering.

i.       Respondent does not deny being aware of the Complainant's business and original domain (realtimereservation.com) when they registered the disputed domain.

j.       Federal registration is not a prerequisite for establishing trademark rights or initiating UDRP proceedings thus, Respondent's assertion that bad faith is impossible without a prior registration, is false.

 

D.       Respondent's Additional Submissions

a.       Respondent admits it previously mischaracterized the prior Panel's summary of contentions as a formal finding of a "bona fide offering," acknowledging that the prior Panel declined to reach that element.

b.       Independent evidence, such as website screenshots, establishes Respondent's actual bona fide offering of hospitality services.

c.       The refiled Complaint should be rejected because the new trademark registration is "newly manufactured" rather than "newly discovered".

d.       Under the Creo Products and Grove Broadcasting standards, new evidence must be something that could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence during the first trial.

e.       Since the Complainant's five-year use of the mark existed long before the first proceeding, Complainant could have applied for the trademark earlier but chose not to.

f.       The USPTO's required disclaimer of "RESERVATION" as generic is not an "impermissible dissection" of the mark, but rather record evidence of the mark's inherent weakness.

g.       A Section 2(f) registration based on a mere five-year-use attestation does not provide the robust rights necessary to prevail against a descriptive domain name in a refiled complaint.

h.       UDRP panels are not bound by USPTO decisions and should conduct independent assessments of a mark's distinctiveness.

i.       Complainant's interpretation of In re Louisiana Fish Fry Products is incorrect, as that case confirms the USPTO may reject five-year use claims for highly descriptive marks.

j.       "Awareness of a competitor" does not equal bad faith, especially when the mark is highly descriptive and lacks proven secondary meaning.

k.       The disputed domain name was registered in October 2023, while the Complainant's trademark application was not filed until February 2025, meaning that Respondent could not have targeted a protected mark that did not yet exist.

l.       Respondent disputes the "retaliation" theory regarding failed negotiations, noting that a 14-month gap between the end of talks and the domain registration is inconsistent with a bad faith motive.

m.       Redirecting a descriptive phrase to a different brand (way.co) is characterized as transparent competition rather than confusion-based diversion.

n.       The Panel should deny the refiled complaint and allow Respondent to keep the disputed domain name.

o.       Respondent reiterates its request for a formal finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) against the Complainant.

 

FINDINGS

1.       Complainant owns the trademark REALTIME RESERVATION through its registrations of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO): Registration No.: 8,083,287 for REALTIME RESERVATION in Class 42 for "software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for inventory management and amenity reservation services in the hospitality field", since December 30, 2025, with first use in commerce in 2019.

2.       Complainant owns the domain name <realtimereservation.com> since May 13, 2019.

3.       Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

4.       The registration and use of the disputed domain name was done in bad faith.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant contends to be the owner of the trademark REALTIME RESERVATION through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO): Registration No.: 8,083,287 for REALTIME RESERVATION in Class 42 for "software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for inventory management and amenity reservation services in the hospitality field", since December 30, 2025, with first use in commerce in 2019.

 

i)                      Existence of a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights

Firstly, it is important to point out that paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the existence of trademark rights. As a matter of general principle, industrial property rights are typically acquired by registration before a competent office.

 

The generally accepted definition of a trademark involves the concept of a distinctive force as the most relevant element. It is this "distinctiveness" that gives the sign the capability to identify the products or services of its owner and differentiate them from the product and services of other participants in the market.

 

When a sign is registered as a trademark, it is surrounded by a presumption of sufficient distinctive force and the owner is granted with an exclusive right over the trademark, which entitles him or her to prevent any third party from using the registered sign or any other sign confusingly similar to it.

 

However, the UDRP does not discriminate between registered and unregistered trademarks¹ and thus, it is well established that a complainant is not required to own a registered trademark to invoke the Policy. It is sufficient in certain common law jurisdictions, such as the United States of America, that complainant has rights over an unregistered trademark as to deserve legal protection, based solely on its use in commerce.

 

In this case, Complainant has proven its rights in the trademark REALTIME RESERVATION through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO): Registration No.: 8,083,287 for REALTIME RESERVATION in Class 42 for "software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for inventory management and amenity reservation services in the hospitality field", since December 30, 2025, with first use in commerce in 2019.

 

This information appears to be incontestable and conclusive evidence of Complainant's ownership of the cited trademark and the exclusive right to use it in connection with services of international class 42. The registration of a trademark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the trademark is inherently distinctive.

 

Therefore, the Panel concludes that Complainant has demonstrated rights in the trademark REALTIME RESERVATION for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

ii)                      Identity or confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's trademark

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark REALTIME RESERVATION.

 

In the first place, before establishing whether or not the disputed domain name <realtimereservations.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark REALTIME RESERVATION, the Panel wants to point out that the addition of generic top-level domains (gTLDs), e.g., ".com," ".net," ".edu," or ".org", may be disregarded when determining if the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark.²   

 

UDRP Panels have unanimously accepted that the inclusion of the ".com" gTLD in a disputed domain name may be disregarded in analyzing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant asserts rights. In the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walsucks and Walmart Puerto Rico, D2000-0477 (WIPO July 25, 2000), the panel stated:

 

"The addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name '.com' is without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants, '.com' is one of only several such gTLDs, and '.com' does not serve to identify a specific enterprise as a source of goods or services".

 

The Panel considers that the reproduction of the trademark REALTIME RESERVATION, by the disputed domain name <realtimereservations.com>, is sufficient ground to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark.³

 

In this case, the disputed domain name totally reproduces the trademark REALTIME RESERVATION.

 

Besides, the disputed domain name does not include any other distinctive elements. Consequently, consumers will assume that the owner of the disputed domain name belongs to Complainant. Thus, by registering the disputed domain name, Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the domain name.

 

In addition, the Panel considers that including the "s" is not sufficient to make the disputed domain name different from the trademark REALTIME RESERVATION.

 

In fact, the "s" simply changes the trademark from singular to plural. Thus, considering Complainant's wide presence, the disputed domain name is likely to be understood by consumers as a subproduct of Complainant's business or part of its advertising strategy. This addition rather than distinguishing the disputed domain name from Complainant's trademark makes it confusingly similar to the trademark. Hence, the disputed domain name should be deemed confusingly similar to the registered trademark.⁴ 

 

Respondent's argument that REALTIME RESERVATION is descriptive does not diminish Complainant's trademark distinctiveness as recognized by an authority or changes the confusion similarity of the disputed domain name and the registered trademark; as from the consumer standpoint the trademark REALTIME RESERVATION is being completely reproduced within the domain name, not just the alleged descriptive phrase.

 

Paragraph 1.7. of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, clearly states:

 

"While each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing".

 

In consequence, as per this reasoning, the Panel finds that, in the present case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark REALTIME RESERVATION and thus, the requirement set forth in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is duly complied with.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

a)       Prima Facie Case.

Regarding this second element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, UDRP Panels have unanimously consented that requiring Complainant to prove the lack of rights or legitimate interests of Respondent in the disputed domain name is often an impossible task: it is not only a negative but also demands access to information that is mostly within the knowledge of Respondent.⁵ 

 

In Julian Barnes v. Old Barn Studios Ltd., D2001-0121 (WIPO Mar. 30, 2001), the Panel stated that:

 

"Is Respondent required to adduce any such evidence, if the onus is on Complainant to prove the three elements of paragraph 4 of the Policy? While the overall burden of proof is on Complainant, this element involves Complainant proving matters, which are peculiarly within the knowledge of Respondent. It involves Complainant in the often impossible task of proving a negative. In the Panel's view the correct approach is as follows: Complainant makes the allegation and puts forward what he can in support (e.g. he has rights to the name, Respondent has no rights to the name of which he is aware, he has not given any permission to Respondent). Unless the allegation is manifestly misconceived, Respondent has a case to answer and that is where paragraph 4(c) of the Policy comes in. If Respondent then fails to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the complaint succeeds under this head".

 

Therefore, a Complainant is required to make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once this prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to Respondent, who must come forward with concrete evidence of its rights or legitimate interests.⁶  If Respondent fails to do so, Complainant is deemed to have met the second element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name <realtimereservations.com> because of the following: i) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; ii) Respondent attracts customers of Complainant's products and thereby divert them away from Complainant; iii) Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to its own website at <way.co> that offers a competing software platform; and iv) Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide registration or use, as two years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name the parties commenced discussions regarding a business relationship.

 

The Panel accepts these assertions as a prima facie case made by Complainant that shifts the burden of production to Respondent.

 

b)       Respondent's rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy includes a nonexclusive listing of circumstances that prove a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a domain name:

(i)                      Before any notice of the dispute, Respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)                      Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)                      Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Respondent states that the disputed domain name is composed of a descriptive term; that redirecting a descriptive domain name to a primary business website (way.co) is considered a legitimate business use; and that comparative advertising is a standard, lawful commercial practice in the software industry and does not constitute bad faith.

 

Given the above, the Panel considers the following:

 

1.       Respondent failed to prove that before receiving the written notice of the Complaint he was using or preparing a website to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

Complainant proved that Respondent knew of Complainant's trademark before registering the disputed domain name in October 2023.

 

Respondent's argument that the trademark was registered after the disputed domain name is unacceptable, given the following:

 

a.       The trademark was first used in 2019, as proven before the USPTO.

b.       This first use in 2019 can be considered a trademark use specially since, it was valuable enough for Respondent to try to acquire it.

c.       Respondent knew of the value of Complainant's trademark since at least 2022, when the negotiation initiated.

d.       If both businesses are the same, what Respondent tried to buy in 2022, was not Complainant's business but Complainant's trademark.

e.       Only after being unable to buy Complainant's business, Respondent considered the trademark was descriptive enough to register the disputed domain name.

f.       Even though the registration was granted in 2025, the value recognized by the Parties is enough before the trademark registration for Respondent to try to disrupt Complainant's business by acquiring a confusingly similar domain name.

g.       Complainant is well recognized in the business and its clients are very important companies.

 

Consequently, redirecting the disputed domain name to Respondent's website to offer competing services, having prior knowledge of the existence of the trademark, cannot be qualified as a bona fide offering of services.

 

2.       Respondent did not provide any evidence supporting the absence of a trademark violation, as Complainant's trademarks remain within the disputed domain name, which create the risk of confusion.

 

3.       Respondent use of Complainant's trademark as part of the disputed domain name also misleads visitors to generate traffic for Respondent's website.

 

4.       Moreover, there is no evidence to support that Respondent is and/or has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

5.       Simply stating that the disputed domain name is descriptive is not evidence of Respondent's rights or legitimate interest in them.

 

6.       Finally, Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue, since the use of Complainant's trademark in the disputed domain name misleads visitors and creates unfair traffic to Respondent's sites.

 

This Panel believes that Respondent failed to prove his rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Therefore, the requirement set forth in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is duly complied with as Respondent lacks any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

According to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith:

 

(i)                      Circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii)                      Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(iii)                      Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv)                      By using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his/her website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his/her website or location or of a product or service on his/her website or location.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, with the primary intention of disrupting Complainant's business as it redirects to Respondent's website which directly competes with Complainant's business.

 

This Panel considers that the mere fact of incorporating a third-party's trademark in a domain name constitutes registration in bad faith.⁷  See Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Direct Navigation Data Inc., WIPO Case No. D2012-1448, where the panel found: "The selection of this word is certainly not a random decision; the Panel finds that it is a consequence of Respondent's prior knowledge of the mark. This fact, by itself, is registration in bad faith in the Panel's opinion".

 

Simply stating that the trademark was registered after the disputed domain name does not contest the rights recognized since 2019 by the USPTO and by Respondent since 2022 (when the negotiations for the acquisition of the business began) and the prior knowledge Respondent had of the trademark and Complainant's business.

 

The selection of a trademark and the redirection of the disputed domain name to Respondent's website denote that the decision was not random. In fact, it is absolutely clear that Respondent not only had prior knowledge but also intended to register the disputed domain name to take advantage of Complainant's trademarks.

 

Thus, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark, which is indicative of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b).

 

Therefore, the three elements of the Policy ¶ 4 are satisfied in the present case in respect to Respondent of the disputed domain name.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Under Paragraph 1 of the Rules, "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" (RDNH) is defined as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name." Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that if "the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."

 

As all the elements were proven the Panel declines to make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

Thus, the Panel finds that the Complaint was not brought in bad faith, in an instance of reverse domain name hijacking.

 

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

 

 

 

Fernando Triana, Esq., Panelist

Dated: April 23, 2026