The Complainant is Six Continents Hotels, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America (“US”), represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, US.
The Respondent is ojk Jerry of Warri, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 9, 2015. On October 9, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On October 9, 2015, the Registrar 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 20, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 9, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 10, 2015.
The Center appointed Charters Macdonald-Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on November 23, 2015. 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 part of the corporate group InterContinental Hotels Group (“IHG”). Companies within IHG franchise, manage, own or lease hotels around the world under a number of brands, including “InterContinental” and “Crowne Plaza”.
The Complainant (or its affiliates) owns over 300 registered trade marks in many geographic regions around the world for trade marks that consist of or contain the mark CROWNE PLAZA. For the purpose of this decision, these will be collectively referred to as the “CROWNE PLAZA Trade Mark”. The Complainant has provided evidence of the following registrations owned by the Complainant:
(i) a trade mark for CROWNE PLAZA registered on September 18, 1984 with the US Patent and Trademark Office to identify, inter alia, hotel services;
(ii) a trade mark for CROWNE PLAZA registered on March 14, 2000 with the US Patent and Trademark Office to identify, inter alia, hotel and restaurant services;
(iii) a trade mark for CROWNE PLAZA registered on March 16, 2010 with the US Patent and Trademark Office to identify, inter alia, casino services;
(iv) a trade mark for CROWNE PLAZA registered on December 17, 2002 with the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market to identify, inter alia, hotel services, motel services, provision of accommodation, and hotel reservation services.
The Complainant (or its affiliates) owns over 100 registered trade marks in many geographic regions around the world for trade marks that consist of or contain the mark IHG. For the purpose of this decision, these will be collectively referred to as the “IHG Trade Mark”. In particular, the Complainant states that the IHG Trade Mark is owned by an affiliate of the Complainant, Six Continents Limited, following a recent assignment from another affiliate of the Complainant, InterContinental Hotels Group plc. The Complainant has provided evidence of the following registrations:
(i) a trade mark for IHG registered on December 9, 2008 with the US Patent and Trademark Office to identify, inter alia, business advisory and business consultancy services relating to hotel management and to hotel franchising; and
(ii) a trade mark for IHG registered on October 27, 2006 with the UK Patent Office (operating as the UK Intellectual Property Office) to identify, inter alia, hotel services, motel services, and provision of accommodation.
The Respondent appears to be an individual known as “ojk Jerry”, resident in Nigeria. The Respondent did not provide a response to the Complaint, so the Panel has little further information about him. The Respondent does not seem to have been involved as a party in prior UDRP decisions.
The Domain Name was created on September 8, 2015. The Domain Name resolves to a webpage stating “website coming soon! Please check back soon to see if the site is available.” 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CROWNE PLAZA Trade Mark as well as the IHG Trade Mark. The Complainant cites in support of its contention Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Richard J.,WIPO Case No. D2005-0569 which found that the “combination of two trademarks must be considered as confusingly similar to such trademarks”.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. He was never authorized by the Complainant to use the CROWNE PLAZA Trade Mark or IHG Trade Mark. By using the Domain Name in connection with an employment/phishing scam (as described below), the Respondent has failed to create a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant cites in support of its contention Terex Corporation v. Williams Sid, Partners Associate,WIPO Case No. D2014-1742. The Respondent has not been commonly known by a name corresponding to the Domain Name. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is for commercial gain, through his employment/phishing scam.
The Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant contends (and has provided evidence in support of its contention) that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in connection with an employment-related and identity theft scam, by impersonating the Complainant in an effort to obtain personal information from job seekers, including through emails using the address “[…]@”. The Complainant cites, inter alia, Vifor (International) Ltd. v. Glenn Freeman,WIPO Case No. 2014-2065, for the proposition that such use is evidence of bad faith use and registration. The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s actions suggest “opportunistic bad faith”, given the Complainant’s established trade mark rights and the close connection between the Domain Name and the Complainant. The Complainant cites in support of its contention Research in Motion Limited v. Dustin Picov,WIPO Case No. D2001-0492. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Procedural Issue
The Complainant states that the IHG Trade Mark is owned by an affiliate of the Complainant, Six Continents Limited, but has not provided the Panel with any evidence of authorization by Six Continents Limited to bring the Complaint.
In most circumstances, a related company to the trade mark holder is considered to have rights in a trade mark for the purposes of filing a complaint. Although it would be desirable for a complainant to provide evidence of authorization by the trade mark holder for the bringing of a complaint, it can be inferred by the panel, depending on the particular facts.
In the Panel’s view, it is possible is these proceedings to infer the existence of such authorization given that Six Continents Limited and the Complainant are described as “affiliates” and are clearly related companies. Even if such an inference cannot be drawn, the Panel considers that the decision would remain the same on the basis of the Complainant’s rights in the CROWNE PLAZA Trade Mark. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name is a combination of the terms “ihg” and “crowneplaza” together with the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”).
Given that the Domain Name comprises the entirety of each of the IHG Trade Mark and CROWNE PLAZA Trade Mark, the (low) threshold test for paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied and, in the Panel’s view, the Domain Name is (at least) confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant succeeds on the first element of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
According to the Complainant, the Complainant has not assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use the CROWNE PLAZA Trade Mark or the IHG Trade Mark in any manner at any time.
There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparation to use, the Domain Name (or a name corresponding to the Domain Name) in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In contrast, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has used the Domain Name in connection with an employment/phishing scam.
The Complainant is not aware of the Respondent having ever been commonly known by the Domain Name. Moreover, the Respondent’s WhoIs information does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. In addition, the fact that the CROWNE PLAZA Trade Mark and IHG Trade Mark have been used by the Complainant (or another member of IHG) for many years around the world, with numerous registrations for each mark, means that the Respondent is unlikely to be commonly known by either of these marks.
Given the current use of the Domain Name, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
Based on the Respondent’s default and on the prima facie evidence provided in the Complaint, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the well-known trade marks, CROWNE PLAZA and IHG. When the Domain Name was registered (on September 8, 2015), the CROWNE PLAZA Trade Mark and the IHG Trade Mark were already internationally recognized in (at least) the field of hotel services and numerous registrations for each mark had been granted before the date on which the Domain Name was registered. Therefore, the Panel is persuaded that the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant’s reputation and business when he acquired the Domain Name, so that the clear inference is that he selected the Domain Name with the CROWNE PLAZA Trade Mark and IHG Trade Mark in mind.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent has been using the Domain Name in connection with an employment/phishing scam. As the Respondent appears to have used an email address in relation to the Domain Name (and used the Complainant’s logos) to impersonate the Complainant, this is further evidence that the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant’s rights in the CROWNE PLAZA Trade Mark and the IHG Trade Mark.
The Respondent did not submit any evidence of bona fide use of the Domain Name (or any response whatsoever in these proceedings). Nothing in the record suggests that the Respondent has a bona fide reason for his choice of a domain name that is confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights. In addition, the apparent use by the Respondent of the Domain Name to operate a phishing scheme, whereby the Respondent impersonates the Complainant in order to (fraudulently) obtain personal information from Internet users in fake job applications, leads the Panel to conclude that the Domain Name was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith, satisfying the third element of the Policy. 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Charters Macdonald-Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: December 2, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy