The Complainant is Hostelworld.com Limited, Ireland, represented by Tomkins & Co., Ireland.
The Respondent is Domain by Proxy, LLC, United States of America (“United States”) / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 14, 2021. On July 14, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 15, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 16, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 16, 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 July 27, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 16, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 21, 2021. The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on August 25, 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. Factual Background The Complainant is an Irish company that operates a large and significant hostel booking site from its website at “www.hostelworld.com” which was launched in 1999. The Complainant is the owner of trade mark registrations for a mark consisting of the word HOSTELWORLD.COM (the “HOSTELWORLD.COM Mark”) in various jurisdictions including international registration No. 899896 designating the European Union, Australia, United States and United Kingdom registered on August 23, 2006 for services in Classes 39 and 42. The Domain Name The Complainant makes the following contentions: (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s HOSTELWORLD.COM Mark; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant is the owner of the HOSTELWORLD.COM Mark, having registered and used the HOSTELWORLD.COM Mark in various jurisdictions around the world. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the HOSTELWORLD.COM Mark since it comprises a minor misspelling of the HOSTELWORLD.COM Mark. There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor does the Respondent have any authorization from the Complainant to register the Domain Name. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. Rather the Respondent is simply offering the Domain Name for sale without any other use. Such use of the Domain Name cannot and does not constitute bona fide commercial use, sufficient to legitimize any rights and interests the Respondent might have in the Domain Name and therefore Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name under paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The only possible motive held by the Respondent in registering the Domain Name is for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to the Complainant or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name. In the present case, the Respondent’s Website indicates that the Domain Name is for sale. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark. The Complainant is the owner of the HOSTELWORLD.COM Mark, having registrations for the HOSTELWORLD.COM Mark as a trade mark in various jurisdictions. The Domain Name consists of the HOSTELWORLD.COM Mark but replaces the letter “e” with the letter “s”. This minor change does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity as it merely creates a common or obvious misspelling (often referred to as typosquatting). The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s HOSTELWORLD.COM Mark. Consequently, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests To succeed on this element, a complainant must make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If such a prima facie case is made out, then the burden of production shifts to the respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy enumerates several ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name: “Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your 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) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.” The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. The Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use the Domain Name or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the HOSTELWORLD.COM Mark or a mark similar to the HOSTELWORLD.COM Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name or any similar name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial fair use or a bona fide offering of goods and services; the use of the Domain Name for a page advertising itself as being for sale, does not, in the absence of other evidence, amount to use for a bona fide offering of goods and services. The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has failed to rebut that prima facie case and establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location (Policy, paragraph 4(b)). The Panel finds that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its reputation in the HOSTELWORLD.COM Mark at the time the Domain Name was registered. It is implausible that a party would register a domain name amounts to a minor misspelling of the HOSTELWORLD.COM Mark and then advertise the Domain Name for sale unless it had an awareness of the reputation of the Complainant and its HOSTELWORLD.COM Mark. The registration of the Domain Name in awareness of the HOSTELWORLD.COM Mark and in the absence of rights or legitimate interests amounts under these circumstances to registration in bad faith. At some point, either immediately after or shortly after the Domain Name was registered, the Respondent placed an advertisement on the website indicating that the Domain Name was for sale. The presence of an advertisement indicating that the Domain Name was for sale within a month of the registration of the Domain Name, along with the lack of any evidence supporting any other explanation as to the possible (legitimate) use of the Domain Name leads the Panel to conclude that the Respondent registered the Domain Name for the purpose of selling it for an amount in excess of the out-of-pocket costs. Pursuant to 4(b)(i) of the Policy the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith under 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 Domain Name, Nicholas Smith
Sole Panelist
Date: September 6, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy