Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Beyond the Dot LTD
Claim Number: FA1409001578896
Complainant: Six Continents Hotels, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Respondent: Beyond the Dot LTD of Central, Hong Kong, International, HK.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: GMO Registry, Inc.
Registrars: 1API GmbH
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Ms. Marie Emmanuelle Haas Ms., as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: September 9, 2014
Commencement: September 10, 2014
Default Date: September 25, 2014
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
URS paragraph 126.96.36.199: The domain name at issue is composed with the Complainant’s HOLIDAY INN trademark, together with the extension “.tokyo”.
The domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark.
The extension “.tokyo” indicates that the domain name is devoted to the HOLIDAY INN hotel which is located in Tokyo.
URS paragraph 188.8.131.52: Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name, which is composed with the famous HOLIDAY INN trademark. He has not made any demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in relation with a bona fide offering of goods or services. He is not commonly known under the domain name at issue and does not make any fair and noncommercial use of that domain name.
URS paragraph 184.108.40.206: Given the strength and worldwide fame of the HOLIDAY INN Trademark, Respondent’s can not have ignored the Complainant’s rights when registering the domain name at issue. It is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark
(see Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003)
For these reasons, the Examiner finds that, Complainant made a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:
Ms. Marie Emmanuelle Haas, Examiner
Dated: September 29, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page