WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Riu Hotels S.A. v. Media Insight
Case No. D2006-1563
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Riu Hotels S.A., of Palma de Mallorca, Spain, represented by Elzaburu, Spain.
The Respondent is Media Insight, of Miami Beach, Florida, United States of America
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names
are registered with Melbourne IT trading as Internet Names Worldwide.
The disputed domain names
are registered with Network Solutions, LLC
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on December�11,�2006. On December�11,�2006, the Center transmitted by email to Melbourne IT trading as Internet Names Worldwide and Network Solutions, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain names at issue. On December�13,�2006, Melbourne IT trading as Internet Names Worldwide and Network Solutions, LLC 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. The Center verified that 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 December�18,�2006. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January�7,�2007. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on January�9,�2007.
The Center appointed Eduardo Machado as the sole panelist in this matter on February�9, 2007. 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 reputed and famous hotel chain. The chain dates back to 1953 when Mr.�Juan Riu took over a small hotel on the Spanish island of Majorca called Riu San Francisco. The Complainant is currently run by the third generation of the RIU family and owns over 100 hotels worldwide in places such as Cuba, Florida, Jamaica, Aruba, Mexico, Bahamas, Cape Verde, Bulgaria, Cyprus and of course the Canary Islands and the Balearic Islands in Spain.
The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations comprising the term RIU in several countries, namely: Spain (Registration No. 1.028.422 for RIU HOTELS, No.1.284.008 for RIU, No. 1.284.010 for RIU, No. 1.284.012 for RIU PALACE, No. 1.284.013 for RIU PALACE, No. 2.589.615 for RIU, No. 1.810.380 for RIU, No. 1.933.016 for RIU, No. 1.933.017 for RIU); International Trademark (Registration No. 625.452 for RIU); Community Trademark (Registration No. 001272129 for RIU), U.S.A. (Registration No. 2066907 for RIU); Jamaica (Registration No. 41335 for HOTEL RIU TROPICAL BAY and No. 45397 for RIU OCHO RIOS); Mexico (Registration No. 650279 for RIU PALACE MEXICO and No. 670583 for HOTEL RIU JALISCO, No. 827402 for RIU CANCUN, No. 28790 for RIU and No. 954709 for HOTEL RIU PLAYACAR); and Dominican Republic (Registration No. 120989 for RIU BACHATA).
The Respondent has registered the domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , and without any authorization from Complainant and created a series of websites whose contents undoubtedly generate direct association with the Complainant. Whoever accesses the above websites linked to the domain names in dispute may believe that they are accessing the official website of the Complainant's RIU hotels.
On May�8,�2006, the Complainant sent a warning letter to the Respondent. The warning letter was delivered on May�10,�2006. The Respondent, apparently, did not answer this letter.
5. Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
i. The Complainant argues that it is a reputed and famous hotel chain and that it is the owner of the famous mark RIU.
ii. The Complainant argues that the disputed domain names infringe its rights in the well-known trademark RIU.
iii. The Complainant argues that the Respondent does not hold a trademark or trade name for the term RIU and has not been licensed to register or use the trademark RIU in the domain names in dispute.
iv. The Complainant argues finally that the Respondent acts in bad faith, because obtaining a domain name without any legitimate right or interests is proof that it has been registered in bad faith. The Complainant also states that the Respondent's intention in registering the domain names could have been to attract Internet users that are looking for a hotel to its website, so as to profit from such visits, as well as from the management of the reservations for hotels other than the RIU chain.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions
6. Discussion and Findings
Although the Respondent did not reply, it is proper for the Panel to examine the Complainant's contention having regard to both the Policy and the Rules.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is correct that the domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , and are confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark RIU and trade name "Riu Hotels S.A." The addition of palacecabosanlucas, jalisco, playacar, palacemexico, palacemacao, bachata, cancun, montegobay, arubagrand, caribe, palacecabo, ochorios, tropicalbay, palaceplayacar and riupalaceamericas to the term RIU, respectively, is not sufficient to avoid a likelihood of confusion, mainly because all of them are related to the field of business in which the Complainant is engaged. Many of the disputed domain names also appear to contain in addition to the RIU mark names of places or words commonly use in the Complainant's area or business.
Thus, the Panel finds that the first element has been met.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain names at issue as enumerated in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . The Respondent, by failing to file a Response, did nothing to dispute this contention nor to provide information as to its interests in using the disputed domain names. The fact that the Respondent has apparently attempted to divert consumers from the Complainant's website by using confusingly similar domain names, and the Respondent's failure to prove any good faith use, reinforces the Panel's conclusion that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Thus, the Panel finds that the second element has been met.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel notes the following particular circumstances of this case:
(i) the Complainant's trademark has a strong reputation and is widely known in its branch of activities;
(ii) the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any good faith use by it of the disputed domain names, and has not participates in this proceeding even though properly notified thereof;
(iii) the disputed domain names resolve to a commercial website, through which, the Respondent is misleading Internet users, and improperly capitalizing on the reputation and goodwill established by the Complainant over its history.
In light of these circumstances, the Panel makes the reasonable inference that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's widely known trademark and trade name. The Panel finds that in registering the domain names, the Respondent intended to attract Internet users for profit. The Respondent now appears to be using the disputed domain names to attract Internet users who may be looking for a hotel to its website, so as to profit from such visits, as well as from the management of the reservations for hotels other than the RIU chain. The Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Thus, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy has been met.
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:
and
be transferred to the Complainant.
Eduardo Machado
Sole Panelist
Dated: February 23, 2007
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy