Westmore · UDRP DecisionAmresorts.club
The Panel ordered transfer of <amresorts.club> to The Coryn Group II, LLC. It found the domain confusingly similar to the registered AMRESORTS mark, found no rights or legitimate interests because the unrebutted evidence indicated use in a fraudulent phishing scheme, and found bad-faith registration and use based on the Respondent's apparent knowledge of the longstanding mark, deceptive email offers for commercial gain, and apparently false contact information.
The timeline behind amresorts.club
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind amresorts.club — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a straightforward exact-mark phishing case in which longstanding trademark rights, domain-based impersonation, commercial-gain deception, respondent default, and apparently false contact information combined to satisfy all three UDRP elements.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION The Coryn Group II, LLC, AMResorts, L.P. v. JD Leon Case No. D2019-1466 1. The Parties The Complainants are The Coryn Group II, LLC and AMResorts, L.P., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Norvell IP llc, United States. The Respondent is JD Leon, Mexico. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <amresorts.club> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 25, 2019. On June 25, 2019, 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 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 June 28, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 18, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 22, 2019. The Center appointed Alistair Payne as the sole panelist in this matter on July 29, 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 both group members of the Apple Leisure Group which has operated in the travel, hospitality and leisure management sectors in North America since 1969. The Coryn Group II, LLC is the intellectual property owner for the group and owns a range of trade marks for the AMRESORTS mark including United States word mark registration 2776812 registered on October 21, 2003. AM Resorts, L.P. provides brand management and marketing services under the AMRESORTS name and mark for hotels and resorts in Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America and in various European destinations. The website at “www.amresorts.com” is used by the Complainants to promote their products and to facilitate reservations. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 3, 2019. The disputed domain currently resolves to a website offering travel deals and is allegedly used for registering email addresses used in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainants submit that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates their AMRESORTS mark, that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain Name (“gTLD”) “.club” does not affect the disputed domain name for the purpose of a determination under the first element of the Policy and that as a consequence the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its AMRESORTS mark. The Complainants say that the Respondent is not affiliated with or connected to them in any way, that the Complainants have never licensed, endorsed or sponsored the Respondent’s use of the AMRESORTS mark and that there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or has any rights that might predate the Complainants’ use of the AMRESORTS mark. The Complainants note that by the time that the disputed domain name was registered they had made a very considerable use of the AMRESORTS mark in connection with their business and have submitted evidence that the Respondent is using it in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme designed to lure consumers into believing that they are dealing with the Complainants’ group. As a consequence, say the Complainants, it is likely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainants’ rights. In addition, the Complainants say that there is no evidence that the Respondent is making any legitimate fair or noncommercial use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain and as a result the Complainants submit that they have made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which case has not been rebutted by the Respondent. The Complainants submit that they had used the AMRESORTS mark for nearly 20 years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name and that their mark has been promoted and used a lot and is well known in the hotel and travel services industry. They say that the Respondent must have been aware of their mark and business and this is borne out by the fact that the Respondent has used an identical AMRESORTS mark in the disputed domain name in connection with fraudulent phishing emails promoting fake AMResorts offers. The Complainants say that these offers were designed to confuse and defraud consumers and that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to register email addresses in connection with its fraudulent phishing scheme in order to make its fake promotional offers. Further, say the Complainants, the Respondent has provided false and incomplete contact information for the registration and maintenance of the disputed domain name which has not only frustrated the Complainants’ efforts to investigate and contact the Respondent, but has also frustrated the Policy. Finally, the Complainants say that the Respondent’s continued ownership of the disputed domain name represents an abusive threat hanging over the Complainants. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainants have demonstrated that they own registered trade mark rights in the AMRESORTS mark, in particular United States word mark registration 2776812 registered on October 21, 2003. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainants’ AMRESORTS mark and is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainants’ registered AMRESORTS trade mark. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name includes nothing else before the gTLD “.club” root and that overall this latter does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainants’ trade mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complaint succeeds under the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainants have submitted that the Respondent is not affiliated with or connected to them in any way, that the Complainants have never licensed, endorsed or sponsored the Respondent’s use of the AMRESORTS mark and that there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, or that it has any rights that might predate the Complainants’ use of the AMRESORTS mark. In addition, the Complainants say that there is no evidence that the Respondent is making any legitimate fair or noncommercial use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain The Complainants have also submitted that by the time the disputed domain name was registered, they had made a very considerable use of the AMRESORTS mark in connection with their business and have provided a copy of email evidence from customers in April and May 2019 that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme designed to lure consumers into falsely believing that the scheme is authorised by the Complainants’ group, or that they are dealing directly with the Complainants’ group. The Panel finds that the Complainants have made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has failed to rebut this case and in particular, to submit any explanation in relation to the alleged fraudulent phishing scheme which is inconsistent with any bona fide interest in the disputed domain name. In these circumstances the Panel finds that the Complaint also succeeds under the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainants have provided evidence that they and their group have used the AMRESORTS mark for nearly 20 years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name in May 2019. The fact that the Respondent has used the AMRESORTS mark in the disputed domain name in connection with a fraudulent phishing email that promotes an offer as if it was provided by the Complainants, together with the evidence of the Complainants’ longstanding prior use of the AMRESORTS mark suggest to the Panel that the Respondent was more likely than not well aware of the Complainants’ mark and business when it registered the disputed domain name and that it did so purposefully. The Complainants have submitted various email offers that they allege have been made by the Respondent and which appear to represent falsely that the Respondent is either authorised by the Complainants to make the offers, or that the Respondent is part of the Complainants’ group. The Respondent has not provided any explanation for these offers and it is apparent to the Panel that they were designed to confuse and defraud consumers into thinking that they were dealing with the Complainants or their authorised representatives when this was not the case and that this was undertaken solely for the Respondent’s commercial gain. This is clearly bad faith use of the disputed domain name under this element of the Policy and is precisely the kind of activity that the Policy was designed to proscribe. The Panel’s view of the Respondent’s bad faith is only reinforced by the fact that the Respondent appears to have provided false contact information. This has not only frustrated the Complainants’ efforts to investigate and contact the Respondent, but also the Center’s efforts to communicate with the Respondent at its physical address in connection with these proceedings. In these circumstances the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has both been registered and used in bad faith and that the Complaint succeeds under this element 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 name <amresorts.club> be transferred to the Complainant, The Coryn Group II, LLC. Alistair Payne Sole Panelist Date: August 12, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around amresorts.club
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.