The Complainant is Six Continents Hotels, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America, represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC United States of America.
The Respondent is Steven Hetzer of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, United States of America. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC.
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 11, 2013. On November 12, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to GoD, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 12, 2013, GoD, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On November 14, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to Network Solutions, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 18, 2013 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.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), 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 November 20, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 10, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 11, 2013.
The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on December 20, 2013. 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 one of a number of companies collectively known as the InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG). IHG provides worldwide hotel related services utilizing a portfolio of well-known brands that incorporate the mark HOLIDAY INN. IHG has obtained more than 1,700 registrations in at least 200 countries for the service mark HOLIDAY INN or service marks incorporating HOLIDAY INN.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain names on August 8, 2013. The disputed domain name resolves to an active website promoting hotel services that compete with the Complainant’s services. The disputed domain name resolves to a page stating the website is “…not currently available.” Shortly after registering the disputed domain names, the Respondent was contacted by representatives of the Complainant. The Respondent proposed a sale of the disputed domain names to the Complainant. Later, when contacted by the Complainant’s counsel, the Respondent professed ignorance of any wrongful conduct and promised to “unregister” the disputed domain names. The Respondent failed to honor his promise. The Complainant thereafter initiated this proceeding. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered HOLIDAY INN mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain names merely add generic or descriptive words as suffixes to Complainant’s HOLIDAY INN mark. “[T]the fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy.” Six Continent Hotels, Inc. v. The Omnicorp,WIPO Case No. D2005-1249 (quoting Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903). See also e.g., Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC, DomainsByP/ Peiyan Yao,WIPO Case No. D2013-0660 (transfer of ); Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Asia Ventures,WIPO Case No. D2003-0659 (transfer of ); Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation, Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Daniel Kirchhof,WIPO Case No. D2009-1661 (transfer of, inter alia, , , ). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complaint, including its exhibits, and lack of response to the Complaint by the Respondent demonstrates for the purposes of this administrative proceeding that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Complainant disavows any commercial relationship with the Respondent whereby the Respondent was licensed or, in any manner, authorized to use the Complainant’s HOLIDAY INN mark or to register and use the disputed domain names. The Complainant has also established for the purposes of this proceeding that prior to the registration of the disputed domain names, the Respondent had not conducted any bona fide business under the HOLIDAY INN mark or the disputed domain names. Moreover, the Respondent has failed to come forward with any demonstration or evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The passive holding of the disputed domain name does not establish legitimate rights or interests under the circumstances of this proceeding. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. Accordingly, the Complainant has established that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Respondent clearly knew of the HOLIDAY INN brand when registering the disputed domain names. Pancil LLC v. Domain Deluxe,WIPO Case No. D2003-1035. Indeed the Respondent initially stated that he intended to use the disputed domain names to form an “affiliate marketing program,” while also proposing to sell the disputed domain names to the Complainant. After being contacted by Complainant’s legal counsel, the Respondent promised to “unregister” the disputed domain names. The Respondent, nonetheless, continues to utilize the disputed domain to promote links to hotel and lodging related services in competition with the Complainant. It is apparent that the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s HOLIDAY INN mark in the disputed domain name was intended to attract unsuspecting Internet users to the Respondent’s website. Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Ramada Inn,WIPO Case No. D2003-0658 (“The Respondent’s website is clearly intended to attract members of the public who may be wishing to reserve HOLIDAY INN hotel rooms, and then to offer them other hotel rooms and services.”). The passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith use in the circumstances of this proceeding. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names and be transferred to the Complainant.
William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: January 3, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy