The Complainant is Six Continents Hotels, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America ("United States" or "U.S."), represented by The GigaLaw, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States.
The Respondent is Lin hongyu, Cheng Qi Lin of Zhanjiang, Guangdong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with GoD, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on October 19, 2017. On October 20, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On October 23, 2017, 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 November 7, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 27, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on November 28, 2017.
The Center appointed Karen Fong as the sole panelist in this matter on December 6, 2017. 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"). It is one of the world's largest hotel groups by number of rooms. Companies within IHG own, manage, lease or franchise, through various subsidiaries, 5,221 hotels and 777,675 guest rooms in nearly 100 countries and territories around the world. IHG owns a portfolio of well-recognized and respected hotel brands including Crowne Plaza Hotels & Resorts, Holiday Inn Hotels and Resorts, Holiday Inn Express, InterContinental Hotels & Resorts, Hotel Indigo, Staybridge Suites, Candlewood Suites, Hualuxe and Even Hotels (collectively the "Hotel Brands"), and also manages the world's largest hotel loyalty program, IHG Rewards Club.
The Complainant's CROWNE PLAZA brand was founded in 1983 and today is used in connection with 410 hotels, with 114,027 hotel rooms, worldwide. The Complainant (or its affiliates) own approximately 330 registrations in 170 countries or geographic regions worldwide for trade marks that consist of or contain the mark CROWNE PLAZA (the "Trade Mark"). These include the following registrations:
Mark
U.S. Reg. No
Date of Registration
Services (partial)
CROWNE PLAZA
1,297,211
September 18, 1984
Hotel services
CROWNE PLAZA
2,329,872
March 14, 2000
Hotel and restaurant services
CROWNE PLAZA
3,761,592
March 16, 2010
Casino services
The Complainant is also the registrant of the domain name , which was created on March 31, 1995. The domain name is used in connection with its website for its CROWNE PLAZA brand of hotels.
The Domain Name was created on August 28, 2012, 29 years after the Complainant or its predecessors in title began using the Trade Mark. The Domain Name was connected to a website which purports to be the Crowne Plaza City Center Ningbo, China. The Website included the Hotel Brands giving the impression that it is part of IHG. It does not appear to be active at the moment. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name, and that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith. The Complainant requests transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. General
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the Trade Mark.
The threshold test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trade mark and the domain name itself to establish if the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's trade mark. The trade mark would generally have to be recognizable within the domain name. In this case the Domain Names integrate the Trade Mark in its entirety plus the prefix "nb", an abbreviation for the Chinese city of "Ningbo" which is the city in China on the Website which the Respondent is advertising its CROWNE PLAZA hotel. The addition of a geographical term does not negate the confusing similarity encouraged by the Respondent's complete integration of the Trade Mark in the Domain Name. The fact that the Complainant has a CROWNE PLAZA hotel in that location adds to the confusion. For the purposes of assessing identity and confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain even when it is descriptive word as in this case. It is viewed as a standard registration requirement.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy therefore are fulfilled. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating any of the following:
(i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate non- commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers, or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
Although the Policy addresses ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, it is well established that, as it is put in section 2.1 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0") that a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent does come forward with some allegations of evidence of relevant right or legitimate interest, the panel weighs all the evidence, with the burden of production always remaining on the complainant.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. The Complainant has no commercial link with the Respondent. It has not granted the Respondent any authorization, licence or any right whatsoever to use the Trade Mark as part of the Domain Name. The Website purports to be affiliated to the Complainant and IHG when it clearly is not and hence the Respondent does not demonstrate bona fide offering of goods and services.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case, a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. The Respondent has not responded and the Panel is unable to conceive of any basis upon which the Respondent could sensibly be said to have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
To succeed under the Policy, a Complainant must show that the Domain Name has been both registered and used in bad faith. It is a double requirement.
The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's trade mark when it registered the Domain Name. It is implausible that he was unaware of the Complainant when he registered the Domain Name given the fame of the Trade Mark. In the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2 states as follows:
"Noting the near instantaneous and global reach of the Internet and search engines, and particularly in circumstances where the complainant's mark is widely known (including in its sector) or highly specific and a respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark (particularly in the case of domainers), panels have been prepared to infer that the respondent knew, or have found that the respondent should have known, that its registration would be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant's mark. Further factors including the nature of the domain name, the chosen top-level domain, any use of the domain name, or any respondent pattern, may obviate a respondent's claim not to have been aware of the complainant's mark."
Given that the Website purports to be part of the Complainant's business, it is clearly inconceivable that the Domain Name was selected by the Respondent without the Complainant in mind. This is especially so as the Complainant has a hotel bearing the Trade Mark in Ningbo. As outlined under the second element above, the clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible explanation for the Respondent's choice of the Domain Name is also a significant factor to consider (as stated in section 3.1.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0). The Domain Name falls into the category stated above and the Panel finds that registration is in bad faith
The Panel also concludes that the actual use of the Domain Name is also in bad faith. The Website bears the Trade Mark and the Complainant's hotel brands and purports to offer hotel services under the Trade Mark. There is a likelihood that the Website could be used to phish for personal data and probably also financial information if users do attempt to book hotel rooms through the Website.
From the above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, by misleading Internet users into believing that the Website and the services offered are those of or authorised or endorsed by the Complainant. The above is clearly bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and the Panel concludes that the Respondent's registration and use of the Domain Name was in bad faith. 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.
Karen Fong
Sole Panelist
Date: December 13, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy