Complainants are The Coryn Group II, LLC and AMResorts, L.P., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Norvell IP llc, United States.
Respondent is Rollyn Renstrom, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 3, 2019. On October 3, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 4, 2019, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 9, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 29, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 1, 2019. The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on November 15, 2019. 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 Complainants The Coryn Group II, LLC and AMResorts, L.P. provide travel, hospitality and leisure management services under the Mark Apple Leisure Group (“ALG”). Complainant The Coryn Group II, LLC (“Coryn Group”) is the intellectual property owner for Apple Leisure Group and owns numerous trademarks globally that are used in connection with a wide range of travel-related services, including all-inclusive offerings, entertainment services, and a network of luxury resorts. Complainant AMResorts, LP (“AMR”) was founded in 2001 as AMResorts LLC and provides brand management and marketing services for a collection of branded luxury resorts under the AMRESORTS mark, including in Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America, with additional resorts in Spain and other European destinations being added by the end of 2019. Complainants’ AMResorts website at “www.amresorts.com” was registered in 2001 and has been continuously operated since it first launched more than 15 years ago. The website connects and informs customers to Complainant’s network of branded travel-related offerings and services, including reservations and bookings for temporary lodgings, resort hotel services, hotel reservation services, and personalized information about hotels and temporary accommodations for travel via the Internet and phone. The AMResorts website serves as a primary marketing tool for Complainants and the primary point of communication between Complainants and their customers. Complainants own trademark registrations in the United States and other countries for the mark AMRESORTS for use in connection with hotel management and related services which they have continuously used in the United States since at least as early as 2000. These registrations include but are not limited to the following: AMRESORTS United States Registration No. 2,776,812 Registered October 21, 2003 AMRESORTS Canada Reg. No. TMA655292 Registered December 16, 2005 AMRESORTS and Design Mexico Reg. No. 947845 Registered August 18, 2006 AMRESORTS Japan Reg. No. 5009347 Registered December 8, 2006 AMRESORTS China Reg. No. 4836872 Registered January 21, 2009 Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 2, 2019. The disputed domain name is not associated with an active website, but displays the message “This site can’t be reached”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to Complainants’ trademark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that it was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in their claim, Complainants must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainants have rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide a complaint “on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainants have demonstrated that they have rights in the trademark AMRESORTS in connection with hotel and resort management and related services. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainants’ mark in its entirety. The addition of the term “grp”, a term commonly used as an abbreviation for “group” does not add any distinguishing feature. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainants’ trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainants contend that Respondent is not affiliated with or connected to Complainants in any way. At no time have Complainants licensed or otherwise endorsed, sponsored or authorized Respondent to use any of Complainants’ AMRESORTS marks or to register the disputed domain name. The record is devoid of any facts that establish any rights or legitimate interests of Respondent in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has any rights that might predate Complainants’ adoption and use of the AMRESORTS marks, domain name Respondent has not made, and is not making, a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name is not associated with an active website, but displays the message “This site can’t be reached”. In addition, as demonstrated by Respondent’s use of Complainants’ identical AMRESORTS marks in connection with a fraudulent scam posing as the President of AMResorts discussed below, the record indicates that Respondent was well aware of Complainants’ AMRESORTS marks and knowingly adopted Complainants’ marks in the disputed domain name in an effort to create the false impression that Respondent is associated with Complainants and is an authorized representative of Complainants to defraud unsuspecting consumers into providing their financial information, or providing payment, to Respondent for Respondent’s personal profit and gain. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith According to the registrar’s records for the disputed domain name, Respondent is Rollyn Renstrom. However, the email address associated with the Registrant belongs to […]. Complainants’ investigation revealed that “Rollie Renstrom” is a Management Consultant in the United States, while […] is the CFO of Royal Vopak, an independent tank storage company located in the Netherlands. Complainants were unable to identify any link between the two individuals. There are 15 different domain names associated with “Rollyn Renstrom” and the email address for Gerard Paulides. Each domain namecontains the name of a major company, such as “Airbus”, “Lego” or “Disney”, with the addition of a general or descriptive word, such as “grp”, “hq”, or a geographic descriptor, such as “mx”. The record indicates that Respondent most likely provided false and/or incomplete name and contact information to the registrar. Complainants have a reasonable basis to believe that the disputed domain name is being used in connection with a fraudulent scam designed to lure consumers into believing that they are being contacted by the President of AMResorts, requesting payment, in order to defraud consumers. On September 2, 2019, the current General Manager of one of the AMResorts’ branded resorts received an email from [...]@amresortsgrp.com (the “Fraudulent Email Address”). The email was from an individual posing as the President of AMResorts. The subject of the Fraudulent Email was “Intercompany-Payment”, and stated that “There is an urgent and important payment to execute today”. The record supports Complainants’ reasonable belief that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to use it in connection with a larger fraudulent scam involving multiple infringing domain names and email addresses belonging to various companies. The record indicates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainants’ rights in the AMRESORTS marks prior to registering the disputed domain name and that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in connection with a fraudulent scam for commercial gain by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainants’ marks. Respondents’ continued ownership of the disputed domain name represents an abusive threat hanging over Complainants. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name 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 disputed domain name Lynda J. Zadra-Symes
Sole Panelist
Date: December 6, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy