DECISION

 

Expedia, Inc. v. Hassan Hacbemi

Claim Number: FA2607002230481

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Expedia, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David M. Kelly of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Hassan Hacbemi ("Respondent"), Algeria.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <expediatravelca.com>, registered with Cloudflare, Inc.

 

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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 1, 2026. Forum received payment on July 1, 2026.

 

On July 2, 2026, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <expediatravelca.com> domain name is registered with Cloudflare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cloudflare, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cloudflare, 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 July 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 27, 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@expediatravelca.com. Also on July 6, 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 July 28, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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

One of the world's largest travel companies, Complainant has rights in the famous EXPEDIA mark dating back to at least as early as 1996.

 

The <expediatravelca.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's famous and federally registered EXPEDIA mark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the <expediatravelca.com> domain name, which Respondent uses for a "parked" website that advertises the registrar's services. This is analogous to passive holding and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent's configuration of the domain name with MX records allows it to use @expediatravelca.com email addresses. This is further evidence that Respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain name. Nothing

in Respondent's Whois information or the record demonstrates that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name, and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its EXPEDIA mark.

 

Respondent's registration and use of the <expediatravelca.com> domain name constitute bad faith under UDRP ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent uses the domain name to intentionally attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's EXPEDIA mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of the domain name, the associated website, and Respondent's activities. Respondent's configuration of the domain name with MX records which allows it to use @expediatravelca.com addresses constitutes further evidence of Respondent's bad faith under UDRP ¶ 4(b)(iv) and as an independent ground of bad faith under prior UDRP decisions. 

 

Respondent's registration and use of the domain name constitute bad faith under UDRP ¶ 4(b)(iii) because Respondent disrupts Complainant's business by using the domain name to compete with Complainant for Internet traffic and by interfering with Complainant's ability to control use of its famous and federally registered EXPEDIA mark. While Respondent is not a direct competitor of Complainant, the fact that Respondent's activities are clearly in opposition to Complainant is sufficient to define Respondent as a competitor under the UDRP. 

 

Respondent's use of the domain name for a "parked" website posted by the registrar is analogous to non-use or passive holding, which constitutes bad faith under prior UDRP decisions. 

 

Finally, it is indisputable that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith with knowledge of Complainant's rights in its EXPEDIA mark given the international fame of Complainant's mark particularly in the field of travel and Respondent's selection and registration of the domain name that contains Complainant's EXPEDIA mark in its entirety combined with the terms "travel" and "CA" that directly relate to Complainant's business.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.

 

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 3.1 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

Complainant has shown that it has rights in the mark EXPEDIA, including USPTO Registration No. 2,220,719, registered on January 26, 1999 for inter alia travel agency services, namely, making reservations and bookings for transportation, in International Class 39.

 

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <expediatravelca.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's EXPEDIA mark, only differing by the addition of the descriptive word "travel" and the geographic abbreviation for Canada "ca", which differences are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark and instead evoke Complainant's business. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent 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 Respondent has 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 customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

The <expediatravelca.com> domain name was registered on April 15, 2026, many years after the registration of Complainant's EXPEDIA mark. It does not resolve to an active website. MX records have been set up, thereby enabling emails to be sent by Respondent from the domain name, purporting to emanate from Complainant.

 

These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <expediatravelca.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii).

 

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant and its EXPEDIA mark when Respondent registered the <expediatravelca.com> domain name and that, by setting up MX records, Respondent is able to send emails falsely purporting to emanate from Complainant. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <expediatravelca.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: July 29, 2026