The Complainants are Hyatt Corporation and Hyatt International Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by DLA Piper LLP (US), United States.
The Respondents are Proxy Protection LLC, United States / Cullen Carter, United States, and Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1249141670, Canada, / Name Redacted. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain name The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 13, 2021. On February 15, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the First and Second Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 15, 2021, the Second Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. On February 17, 2021, the First Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 17, 2021, providing the registrants and contact information disclosed by the Registrars, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 22, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 March 1, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 21, 2021. The Center received on March 3, 2021, a communication from a third party and all Parties were informed of this communication. The Center notified the Parties of the commencement of the Panel appointment process on March 22, 2021. The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on March 30, 2021. 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. Procedural Issues The Panel is satisfied that the two named Complainants have a specific common grievance against the Respondent in this proceeding and that it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation of their respective complaints (see section 4.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The two entities will be referred to jointly as the Complainant in the remainder of this Decision. Based on evidence submitted by the Complainant, which is discussed further below, the Panel is satisfied that the two disputed domain names in this proceeding are under common control and that the consolidation of the proceedings in respect of the two disputed domain names would be fair and equitable to all parties (see section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). The Complainant has submitted evidence that the registrant information provided for the disputed domain name The Complainant is an international hotel management company headquartered in Chicago, United States. It provides hotel and resort services in the United States and around the world under the name and trademark HYATT. The Complainant is the owner of a significant number of registrations for the trademark HYATT in territories throughout the world. Those registrations include, for example, United States trademark number 0945384 for the word mark HYATT, registered on October 17, 1972, for goods and services including “hotel, motel and reservation services” in International Class 42. The Complainant operates a website at “www.hyatt.com”. The disputed domain name The disputed domain name The Complainant states that it has operated a business under the name and trademark HYATT since 1957 and now has a portfolio of over 850 licensed, franchised, or authorized hotels and resorts in over 60 countries throughout the world. It submits that it spends million of dollars on advertising under the HYATT mark and provides evidence of substantial industry and media recognition of its services, including rankings, awards, and accolades. The Complainant contends that, as a result of these matters, its HYATT trademark is widely known and recognized around the world. The Complainant submits that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to its HYATT trademark. It states that each of the disputed domain names adopts its HYATT trademark in its entirety, together with the respective abbreviations “ja” and “jam”, both of which refer to Jamaica, and that geographical indicators of this kind are not capable of distinguishing the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant submits that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant states that it has never authorized the Respondents to use its HYATT trademark, that the Respondents have not commonly been known by that name, and that the Respondents are making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. Instead, the Complainant contends that the Respondents are using the disputed domain names for the purpose of a fraudulent enterprise as further explained below. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondents were obviously aware of its HYATT trademark when they registered the disputed domain names and that they did so in order to mislead and confuse the public into believing that those disputed domain names were legitimately associated with the Complainant. The Complainant submits further that the Respondents have used the disputed domain names for the purpose of a fraudulent email scheme. They provide evidence that an email from “[…]@hyattja.com” was sent to an individual, falsely claiming to be from a sales and promotion manager employed by the Complainant, and stating that the recipient had won a vacation. The email requested a payment of USD 977 to secure the vacation in question. When the individual replied to this email, they received a response from “[…]@hyattjam.com” supposedly directing where this money should be paid. In the submission of the Complainant, the above emails evidence both the connection between the two disputed domain names and the use by the Respondents of the disputed domain names in order to perpetrate a fraud. The Complainant further submits that the registrant address information provided by the Respondents in respect of both of the disputed domain names is false, one such address being none-existent and the other representing an impersonation of a real individual. The Complainant requests the transfer of both of the disputed domain names. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The Panel finds that the third-party email referred to in the procedural history set out above is not material to its determination of this matter. 7. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are that: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has demonstrated that it has registered trademark rights in the mark HYATT. Each of the two disputed domain names comprises the whole of that trademark together with the additional letters, respectively, “ja” and “jam”. Whether or not these additional letters represent the geographical term “Jamaica” as the Complainant contends, in neither case do they distinguish the relevant disputed domain name from the Complainant’s HYATT trademark, which is clearly recognizable in each of the disputed domain names. The Panel therefore finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. However, the Respondents have not filed a Response in this proceeding and have not submitted any explanation for their registration and use of the disputed domain names, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on their part in the disputed domain names, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. There being no other evidence before the Panel of any such rights or legitimate interests, the Panel finds that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of either of the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that the Complainant’s mark HYATT is widely known in connection with hotel and resort services and that each of the disputed domain names is inherently misleading, as inevitably implying a legitimate connection with the Complainant. Each of the disputed domain names therefore constitutes an impersonation of the Complainant. In the light of the above and of the use to which the Respondents have put the disputed domain names, the Panel finds that the Respondents clearly had the Complainant’s HYATT trademark in mind when they registered the disputed domain names and did so in order to target and take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill attaching to that trademark. The Panel further finds that the Respondents have used both of the disputed domain names in furtherance of a fraudulent email scheme, whereby they have attempted to obtain a monetary payment from at least one member of the public by expressly impersonating the Complainant and claiming that that individual had won a vacation. The Panel therefore finds that both of the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. 8. 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, Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: April 9, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy