ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Six Continents Hotels, Inc., Six Continents Limited v. Name Redacted Case No. D2024-3211 1. The Parties The Complainant is Six Continents Hotels, Inc., and Six Continents Limited, United States of America (“United States”), represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States. The Respondent is Name Redacted.1 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 6, 2024. On August 6, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 7, 2024, the 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 (Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org)) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 7, 2024, 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 amendment to the Complaint on August 7, 2024. 1The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the apparent impersonation, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.
page 2 The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 August 13, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 2, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 9, 2024. The Center appointed Eva Fiammenghi as the sole panelist in this matter on September 16, 2024. 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, established in 2003, owns and operates renowned hotel brands, including InterContinental Hotels & Resorts, Crowne Plaza, and Holiday Inn. The Complainant's business model involves the management, leasing, franchising, and operation of over 6,300 hotels globally and its headquarters are located in the United States and the United Kingdom. The Complainant relies on several trademarks registered across multiple jurisdictions, including but not limited to: - United States Registration (“Reg.”) No. 3,544,074, IHG, Reg. Date December 9, 2008 - Class 35; - United States Reg. No. 4,921,698, IHG, Reg. Date March 22, 2016 - Classes 9, 41, 43; and - European Union Trade Mark No. 915655, IHG, Reg. Date December 21, 2006 - Classes 35, 43. The IHG trademark has been consistently used in connection with the Complainant's global hotel business, and the Complainant holds numerous domain names incorporating the IHG mark, including since 1998, further demonstrating its rights and association with the mark. The disputed domain name was registered on July 9, 2024, and is being used to send fake job offers, falsely appearing to originate from the Complainant’s “InterContinental Toronto Centre” hotel. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name, , incorporates the Complainant’s well-known trademark IHG in its entirety, with the mere addition of the descriptive term “recruitment”. This does not distinguish the domain from the Complainant’s trademark but rather creates a likelihood of confusion, leading users to believe that the domain is associated with the Complainant’s recruitment or employment services. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by “IHG” or “IHG Recruitment” and has not been
page 3 authorized, licensed, or permitted by the Complainant to use the IHG trademark in any manner. Additionally, the Respondent’s use of the domain to conduct fraudulent employment scams further demonstrates a lack of any legitimate interests. The Complainant argues that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith. The Respondent used the domain to impersonate the Complainant and conduct phishing scams, misleading job seekers with fake employment offers purportedly from the Complainant. In response to WIPO’s request for verification, the Registrar confirmed that the disputed domain name had been registered under a name clearly designed to mimic the Complainant’s trademark. As a result, the Complainant amended its Complaint to reflect this information and emphasized the suspicious nature of the Respondent’s registration, requesting that the Respondent’s name be redacted since it is apparent that the provided registrant details are false details (designed to impersonate the Complainant). B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. These elements are discussed in turn below. In considering these elements, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any other rules or principles of law that the Panel deems applicable. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of the term “recruitment” may bear on the assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that the addition of such a term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
page 4 B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the Complainant, panels have recognized that proving a Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative,“ requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the Respondent. As such, where a Complainant makes out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the Complainant). If the Respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here claimed as phishing and impersonation, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. The Respondent has no apparent legitimate connection to the term “IHG” and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for fraudulent employment scams underscores the lack of any legitimate interest. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name directly incorporates the Complainant’s well-known IHG trademark, combined with the word “recruitment”, falsely suggesting that the disputed domain name is affiliated with the Complainant’s legitimate business operations, specifically recruitment services. This misleading use is intended to exploit the Complainant’s reputation and deceive users. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name for illegal activity, specifically impersonation and phishing, by sending fraudulent job offers to unsuspecting individuals under the guise of the Complainant's identity. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Such illegal activity constitutes bad faith use and registration of the domain name. The fact that the Respondent did not respond to the Complaint further supports this finding of bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
page 5 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 be transferred to the Complainant. /Eva Fiammenghi/ Eva Fiammenghi Sole Panelist Date: Steptember 30, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy