The Complainants are The Coryn Group II, LLC, United States of America (the “United States”) and AMResorts, L.P., United States, represented by Norvell IP LLC, United States.
The Respondent is Albert Rodriguez, Mexico. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 26, 2019. On October 28, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 29, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 31, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 20, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 22, 2019. The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on November 26, 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 The Complainants are The Coryn Group II, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and AMResorts, L.P., a limited partnership holding the intellectual property for the collection of entities known as Apple Leisure Group, a large North American premier travel, hospitality and leisure management group. The Complainants own AMRESORTS, AM RESORTS and AMREWARDS trademarks in various jurisdictions (e.g. AMRESORTS United States registration No. 2,776,812 registered on October 21, 2003 and Canadian registration No. TMA655292 registered on December 16, 2005; AM RESORTS Mexican registration No. 785894 registered on March 31, 2003; AMREWARDS United States registration No. 4,770,377 registered on July 7, 2015). The Complainants offer their services for temporary lodging, resort hotel services, hotel reservations and various other services through their domain The disputed domain names were first registered on April 1, 2019 and previously resolved to a test page. Currently, the disputed domain names resolve to a suspended account. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants The Complainants allege that they have satisfied all elements of the Policy, paragraph 4. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Complainants have jointly filed this Complaint against a single respondent. UDRP Panels have accepted the consolidation of multiple complainants when the complainants have a specific common grievance against the respondent, or the respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected the complainants in a similar fashion (see section 4.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)). Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainants have a common legal interest in the trademarks reproduced in the disputed domain names and accepts the joint Complaint. On the basis of the facts and evidence introduced by the Complainants, and with regard to paragraphs 4(a), (b) and (c) of the Policy, the Panel concludes as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainants have submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate their registered rights in the trademarks AMRESORTS, AM RESORTS, and AMREWARDS. The AMRESORTS trademark is reproduced in the disputed domain name It is the consensus view of UDRP panels that the addition of such dictionary terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), sections 1.7 and 1.8). Both disputed domain names are therefore not sufficiently distinguishable from the Complainants’ AMRESORTS or AMREWARDS trademark, respectively. The Complainants have thus fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainants contend that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainants nor making any bona fide use of the disputed domain names. Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for actives such as impersonating or other types of fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent has sent fraudulent emails from the email addresses [...]@corporationamresorts.com (on June 7, 2019) and [...]@corporationrewards.com (on August 21, 2019) using multiple trademarks owned by the Complainants and promoting offers similar or equal to those being offered on the Complainants’ websites. This is deceptive, confusing and cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use (Minerva S.A. v. El Yanko,WIPO Case No. D2018-0767). Based on the Complainants’ contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainants, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, have fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under the circumstances of this case, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainants’ trademarks when registering the disputed domain names. Panels have found that the use of a domain name for purposes other than to host a website may constitute bad faith. This includes cases where the domain name has been used to send deceptive emails (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4). The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names in connection with fraudulent emails indicates that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ trademarks. Such use evidences bad faith in registration and use (Minerva S.A. v. Miranda Nyenhuis,WIPO Case No. D2018-0763). Accordingly, the Complainants have fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 disputed domain names, Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: December 10, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy