Westmore · UDRP DecisionGrandhyattjeju.com, Grandhyattjeju.net
The Panel ordered transfer of <grandhyattjeju.com> and <grandhyattjeju.net>. It found the domain names confusingly similar to the Complainants’ GRAND HYATT mark because they incorporated the mark with the geographic term “Jeju.” The Complainants made an unrebutted prima facie showing that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests. Bad faith was established based on the well-known mark, registration one day after the announcement of a new Hyatt hotel in Jeju, the inactive or parked use of the domain names, and the Respondent’s failure to answer the Complainants’ correspondence or participate in the proceeding.
The timeline behind grandhyattjeju.com
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 grandhyattjeju.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
The case illustrates how a trademark combined with a geographic term can create a strong targeting inference when registration immediately follows a location-specific business announcement. It also shows that inactive or registrar-parked domain names may satisfy bad-faith use where the mark is well known, the registration timing is suspicious, and the respondent offers no contrary explanation.
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 Hyatt Corporation, Hyatt International Corporation v. Lee Jinsoo Case No. D2019-1876 1. The Parties The Complainants are Hyatt Corporation, United States of America (“United States”) and Hyatt International Corporation, United States, represented by DLA Piper (LLP) US, United States. The Respondent is Lee Jinsoo, Republic of Korea (“Korea”). 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <grandhyattjeju.com> and <grandhyattjeju.net> are registered with Whois Networks Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 2, 2019. On August 5, 2019, the Center transmitted to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On August 6, 2019, the Registrar transmitted to the Center its verification response, stating, inter alia , that the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is in Korean, and disclosing the registrant’s contact information for the disputed domain names, which differed from the named Respondent’s contact information in the Complaint. On August 13, 2019, the Center notified the Parties, in both English and Korean, that the Complaint was submitted in English, and that according to the Registrar, the language of the registration agreement is Korean. In the same notification, the Center requested the Complainants to provide, by August 16, 2019: “1) satisfactory evidence of an agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the proceedings should be in English; or 2) the Complaint translated into Korean; or 3) a request for English to be the language of the administrative proceedings.” To the Respondent, the Center stated that “if the Respondent is intending to participate in these proceedings, and/or has any comments on the Complainant’s submission replying to this notification, the Respondent is requested to submit these to the Center by August 18, 2019.” The Center also advised the Respondent: “Specifically in the case of the Complainant submitting (or indicating that it will submit) a request for the language of proceedings to be English, and the Respondent objects to such request, the Respondent is invited to indicate that objection for the record, and to submit any arguments/supporting materials … as to why the proceedings should not be conducted in English. Please note that if we do not hear from you by [August 18, 2019], we will proceed on the basis that you have no objection to the Complainant’s request that English be the language of proceedings.” Also on August 13, 2019, the Center separately provided the Complainants with the registrant information disclosed by the Registrar, and invited the Complainants to submit an amended Complaint. On August 14, 2019, the Complainants transmitted to the Center their request that the proceeding be conducted in English. The Respondent did not submit any request regarding the language of the proceeding. Also on August 14, 2019, the Complainants separately filed an amended Complaint. 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, in both English and Korean, of the operative Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on August 26, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for the Response was September 15, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, on September 16, 2019, the Center notified the Respondent’s default. The Center appointed Professor Ilhyung Lee as the sole panelist in this matter on October 1, 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 describe themselves as “an international hotel management company which, through its affiliates, licensees, franchisees and authorized hotel owners, provides services for HYATT-branded properties, hotels and resorts throughout the world.” The Complainants have obtained in the United States registration of multiple marks containing “GRAND HYATT”, the first on April 2, 1985. The Complainants registered the domain name <grandhyatt.com> on December 4, 1999, and <grandhyatt.net> on March 8, 2005. The Respondent registered the disputed domain names on August 28, 2017. The disputed domain name <grandhyattjeju.com> does not resolve to any active website. The disputed domain name <grandhyattjeju.net> resolves to the Registrar’s parking page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants The Complainants contend principally that: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainants have rights; (ii) the Respondent has 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. In addition, the amended Complaint states, inter alia : “For more than sixty (60) years, Hyatt, through its licensees, franchisees, affiliates and authorized hotel owners, has used the mark and name HYATT, and variations thereof (including GRAND HYATT), in connection with hotel and resort services in the United States and around the world ….” “HYATT-branded hotels are among some of the most recognized hotels in the United States and the world ….” “On 27 August 2017, the day before the [disputed] [d]omain [n]ames were registered, Hyatt announced that it would open a GRAND HYATT-branded hotel in Jeju, South Korea.” “[T]he HYATT Marks, including the GRAND HYATT mark, are distinctive and famous and have enjoyed such distinctiveness and fame since long prior to the date Respondent registered the [disputed] [d]omain [n]ames.” “Hyatt has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its HYATT Marks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the mark.” B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. Paragraphs 5(f) and 14(a) of the Rules allow the Panel to decide the dispute based on the Complaint. Under paragraph 14(b), the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default. 6. Discussion and Findings Initially, the Panel must address the language of the proceeding. Although the Complainants assert that English is the language of the registration agreement, the Registrar informed the Center that the operative agreement is in Korean. Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that the language of the registration agreement is the language of the administrative proceeding, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or specified in the registration agreement. The rule also states that the determination of the language is “subject to the authority of the Panel …, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.” The Panel notes that the Complainants’ local counsel in Korea sent a letter to the Respondent, in Korean text, demanding that the disputed domain names be transferred to the Complainants. The Respondent did not respond to the letter. The Respondent has also defaulted from this proceeding. Considering all the circumstances, the Panel determines that the proceeding will be in English. On the merits, in order to prevail, the Complainants must show that all three elements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainants have established rights in the GRAND HYATT mark. The Panel determines that the disputed domain names <grandhyattjeju.com> and <grandhyattjeju.net> are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ mark. The “grandhyatt” text is prominently included in each of the disputed domain names. The mere addition of a geographical term – like “jeju” – to a complainant’s mark does not defeat confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i). WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8 . The first element is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainants state that they have not authorized the Respondent to use the Complainants’ HYATT marks, and have met their initial burden of making a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The burden shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate any such rights or legitimate interests. Paragraph 4(c) provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel is unable to ascertain any evidence that would demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, as described in the Policy, or otherwise. The second element is demonstrated. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel determines that the record supports a finding of the bad faith element required in paragraph 4(a)(iii). On August 27, 2017, the Complainants announced that Hyatt would open a new hotel in the Jeju province in Korea. The Respondent registered the disputed domain names the next day. That the disputed domain names resolve to inactive websites does not defeat a finding of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.3 . Here, GRAND HYATT is a well-known mark; the timing of the registration of the disputed domain names is suspect; and the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainants’ correspondence does not help its cause. Under the circumstances, the Panel can only conclude that the Respondent has “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the Respondent’s] website … by creating a likelihood of confusion with the [C]omplainant[s’] mark,” as set forth in paragraph 4(b)(iv). The third element is also established. 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 names <grandhyattjeju.com> and <grandhyattjeju.net> be transferred to the Complainant. Ilhyung Lee Sole Panelist Date: October 15, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around grandhyattjeju.com
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.