WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. Domaincar
Case No.�D2006-0136
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., New�York, United�States�of�America, represented by Arnold & Porter, United�States�of�America.
The Respondent is Domaincar, Panama, Panama.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names;
are registered with DSTR Acquisition VII, LLC d/b/a D.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the�“Center”) on January�31,�2006. On February�2,�2006, the Center transmitted by email to DSTR Acquisition VII, LLC d/b/a D a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain names at issue. On February�4,�2006, DSTR�Acquisition�VII,�LLC d/b/a D transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact.
In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on February�16,�2006.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the�“Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the�“Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the�“Supplemental�Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs�2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March�2,�2006. In�accordance with the Rules, paragraph�5(a), the due date for Response was March�22,�2006. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March�24,�2006.
The Center appointed Mr.�Daniel�Pe�a as the Sole Panelist in this matter on April�7,�2006. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph�7.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a hotel and leisure company. Through some of its affiliates, the Complainant owns the trademarks Sheraton, Westin, St Regis and Four Points. These marks are registered and used to distinguish hotels and leisure related goods and services.
The Complainant invests large sums of money to promote and develop its marks through television, print media and the Internet. An awards program for its guests, for example, includes over 22 million consumer members. With 145,000 employees and a property portfolio of 850 properties in more than 95 countries, the Complainant claims to be among the leading and most successful hotel and resort operators.
The Complainant has registered and currently uses several domain names. Each of these websites enable computer users to access information regarding its hotels and leisure related services.
The domain names were registered between December 2004 and May 2005.
The Respondent’s web pages advertise links to hotel and leisure services which compete with the Complainant’s locations.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has granted federal trademark registrations to the Complainant and its affiliates as follows:
Trademark
International Class
Registration
Number
Registration Date
SHERATON
42
679,027
May�19,�1959
SHERATON
42
1,784,580
July�27,�1993
SHERATON (design)
42
1,401,715
July�15,�1986
SHERATON (design)
42
1,401,714
July�15,�1986
SHERATON
38
954,454
March�6,�1973
SHERATON
41
1,884,365
March�15,�1995
WESTIN
42
1,320,080
February�12,�1985
WESTIN HOTELS & RESORTS
42
1,428,848
February�10,�1987
WESTIN
41
1,720,799
September�29,�1992
WESTIN
36
2,257,629
June�29,�1999
FOUR POINTS
42
2,003,614
September�24,�1996
FOUR POINTS BY SHERATON
43
Serial No 78/600,167
Status: Published
THE ST. REGIS
42
1,897,870
June�6,�1995
ST. REGIS
36
2,893,705
October�12,�2004
ST. REGIS RESIDENCE CLUB
36
2,991,460
September�6,�2005
The Complainant considers the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, as listed above. In addition to incorporating the Complainant’s trademarks into the disputed domain names, the Respondent also registered as domain names misspellings of these trademarks.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is a serial cybersquatter – specifically a typosquatter– who has registered over one thousand domain names, including a number of domain names incorporating third parties’ trademarks.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
This Panel is satisfied that the Center took all steps necessary to notify Respondent of the filing of the Complaint and initiation of these proceedings, and that the failure of the Respondent to furnish a Response to the Complaint is not due to any omission by the Center.
According to paragraph�4(a) of the Policy the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) That the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks or service marks in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) That the Respondent has no rights or no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) That the domain name has been registered and is used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the domain names currently used by the Respondent are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has provided proof of its rights to the trademarks listed above under section 5A.
The Panel notes that many of the domain names registered by Respondent simply add a city name or a generic word to Complainant’s famous trademarks. The additional names of cities in the domain names are not enough to avoid the likelihood of confusion.
In this case, the geographical descriptors added to the domain names do not simply fail to avoid a likehood of confusion but they actually increase it, because they relate directly to places where the Complainant has developed or might develop its core business through hotels and other leisure services.
Some of the disputed domain names are nearly identical to Complainant’s trademarks but a letter has been changed, added or deleted in an effort to mislead consumers who have made a typographical error in their browser while typing the domain name which they think will lead to the Complainant’s website. The omission , addition, inversion or substitution of a letter is commonly known as typosquatting. The latter reinforces similarity between the disputed domain names and the trademarks of the Complainant pursuant to Policy,�paragraph�4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the first element of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has also established that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the Complainant’s marks in a domain name or in any other manner. Taking into account the Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain names in diverting Internet users from Complainant’s services to the Respondent’s websites for its own financial gain, the Respondent’s prior involvement in UDRP proceedings as a respondent as explained below, and in the presence of no evidence to the contrary, the Panel concludes that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests to the domain names.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant has emphasized that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s rights in the trademarks when the Respondent registered over thirty domain names that incorporate confusingly similar versions of the Complainant’s trademarks. Due to the good will and considerable investment in advertising related to the Complainant’s trademarks, this Panel agrees with the foregoing argument.
As demonstrated, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, and indeed has attracted for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location, by taking advantage of misspellings or typing errors of Internet users while they search for a web page.
Moreover, the Complainant has established that the Respondent is a serial cybersquatter which has registered a number of domain names including domain names incorporating third parties’ trademarks for use in connection with websites that advertise goods competing with the goods and services of such trademark owners. These circumstances further indicate that Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in bad faith within the meaning of Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy.
The Complainant has established that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. The third requirement of the Policy has therefore been fulfilled.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs�4(i) of the Policy and 15�of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain names, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,be transferred to the Complainant.
Daniel Pe�a
Sole Panelist
Dated: April�17,�2006
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy