ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Sandals Resorts International 2000 Inc. v. Annette Soucy, WWW Realty Case No. D2025-3265 1. The Parties The Complainant is Sandals Resorts International 2000 Inc., Panama, represented by Dechert LLP, United Kingdom. The Respondent is Annette Soucy, WWW Realty, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 14, 2025. On August 15, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, 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 (NameSilo, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 18, 2025, 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 August 20, 2025. 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 August 22, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 11, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 12, 2025. As the disputed domain name had entered the redemption period prior to the filing of the Complaint, the Complainant renewed the registration on September 17, 2025.
page 2 The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on September 29, 2025. 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 operates a holiday business. Founded in 1981, it now has 17 luxury hotels on 8 Caribbean islands operating under the Sandals brand. It has been named the World’s Leading All-Inclusive Company at the World Travel Awards for the last 26 years. It has also won multiple other awards, including at the most recent Caribbean and North America World Travel Awards in 2024. The Complainant holds trademark registrations in multiple jurisdictions, including the following: − United States trademark registration number 1614295 for SANDALS, registered on September 18, 1990, and specifying services in classes 39 and 42; and − European Union trademark registration number 000169946 for a stylized SANDALS mark, registered on June 11, 1998, specifying goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, and 42. The above trademark registrations are current. The Complainant also operates a website in connection with the domain name where it provides information about itself and its resorts. The Respondent is identified in the Registrar’s WhoIs database as an individual and business located in the United States. Due to the fact that the contact street address is incorrect, the written notice of the Complaint could not be delivered by courier. The username in the contact email address is a transliteration of Chinese characters meaning “Mr. Black”. The disputed domain name was registered on July 24, 2024. It resolves to a landing page displaying pay-per-click (“PPC”) links related to topics including “Sandals Barbados All Inclusive Packages”, “Sell Off Vacations Sandals”, “St Lucia Holidays”, “Womens Sandals Uk” and “Ladies Soft Leather Sandals Uk”, among others. 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 contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SANDALS mark. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name uses the goodwill of the reputed SANDALS mark and trades off the Complainant’s brand to generate revenue. The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted or authorized the Respondent to use its SANDALS mark or to apply for a domain name incorporating that mark. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent must have been aware of the SANDALS mark and the Complainant’s rights in it when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s entire mark combined with a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.buzz”, which may confuse consumers into believing it describes the Complainant’s business, may mislead consumers to believe that they have reached (or not been able to reach) the Complainant’s website and so divert internet traffic from the Complainant.
page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must prove each of the following elements: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. Based on the evidence presented, the Complainant has shown rights in respect of the SANDALS trademark for the purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the SANDALS mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. The only additional element is a gTLD extension (“.buzz”) which, as a standard requirement of domain name registration, may be disregarded in the assessment of identity or confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 1.11.1. Therefore, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. 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. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. In the present case, the disputed domain name resolves to a landing page displaying PPC links, many of which (such as “Sandals Barbados All Inclusive Packages”, “Sell Off Vacations Sandals”, and “St Lucia Holidays”) relate to the Complainant and its holiday business. The Complainant submits that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted or authorized the Respondent to use its SANDALS mark or to apply for a domain name incorporating that mark. The Panel has taken note that “sandals” is a plural dictionary word for
page 4 a type of footwear and that some other PPC links on the landing page (such as “Womens Sandals Uk” and “Ladies Soft Leather Sandals Uk”) relate to the descriptive meaning of that term. However, this does not alter the fact that many other PPC links on the landing page clearly capitalize on the trademark sense of that term. These circumstances do not indicate that the disputed domain name is being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. This use of the disputed domain name is for the commercial gain of the Respondent, if he is paid to direct traffic to the linked websites, or for the commercial gain of the operators of the linked websites, or both. Accordingly, this is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name either. Further, the Respondent’s name listed in the Registrar’s WhoIs database is that shown for the Respondent in Section 1 above, which bears no resemblance to the disputed domain name. Nothing in the record indicates that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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. Based on the record, 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. The fourth of these circumstances is as follows: “(iv) by using the [disputed] domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] 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] web site or location.” In the present case, the disputed domain name was registered in 2024, many years after the registration of the Complainant’s SANDALS mark, including in the United States where the Respondent is supposedly based. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the SANDALS mark with no additional element besides a gTLD extension. The SANDALS mark has achieved a considerable reputation in the holiday sector due to the Complainant’s longstanding and extensive use and promotion of that mark in connection with its resorts. The disputed domain name resolves to a landing page displaying PPC links related to the Complainant and its holiday business, among other things. The Respondent, who also provided incorrect contact information, provides no explanation for his choice of the disputed domain name. In view of these circumstances, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Complainant registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s SANDALS mark in mind. As regards use, the disputed domain name operates at least partly by attracting Internet users searching for the Complainant and diverting them to the PPC links landing page. The Panel recalls its findings in Section 6.B above that this use is for commercial gain. It is more likely than not that this use is intentional. Accordingly, the Panel finds that these circumstances fall within the terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Therefore, 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. /Matthew Kennedy/ Matthew Kennedy Sole Panelist Date: October 13, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy