Westmore · UDRP DecisionCorporationamresorts.com, Corporationamrewards.com
The Panel ordered transfer of both disputed domain names to The Coryn Group II, LLC. It found the domains confusingly similar to the Complainants’ AMRESORTS and AMREWARDS marks, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that use of the domains for fraudulent emails demonstrated bad-faith registration and use.
The timeline behind corporationamresorts.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 corporationamresorts.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
The decision illustrates that email-based impersonation can be decisive under the UDRP even where the associated websites contain only a test page or are suspended. It also shows that adding a corporate descriptor to a recognizable mark generally does not avoid confusing similarity and may reinforce an appearance of organizational affiliation.
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 and AMResorts, L.P. v. Albert Rodriguez Case No. D2019-2623 1. The Parties The Complainants are The Coryn Group II, LLC, United States of America (the “United States”) and AMResorts, L.P., United States, represented by Norvell IP LLC, United States. The Respondent is Albert Rodriguez, Mexico. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <corporationamresorts.com> and <corporationamrewards.com> are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 26, 2019. On October 28, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 29, 2019, 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 October 31, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 20, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 22, 2019. The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on November 26, 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 The Coryn Group II, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and AMResorts, L.P., a limited partnership holding the intellectual property for the collection of entities known as Apple Leisure Group, a large North American premier travel, hospitality and leisure management group. The Complainants own AMRESORTS, AM RESORTS and AMREWARDS trademarks in various jurisdictions (e.g. AMRESORTS United States registration No. 2,776,812 registered on October 21, 2003 and Canadian registration No. TMA655292 registered on December 16, 2005; AM RESORTS Mexican registration No. 785894 registered on March 31, 2003; AMREWARDS United States registration No. 4,770,377 registered on July 7, 2015). The Complainants offer their services for temporary lodging, resort hotel services, hotel reservations and various other services through their domain <amresorts.com>. For their incentive rewards program to promote the sale of hotel services by travel agents, the Complainants use their domains <amrewards.com> and <amrewards.amragents.com>. The disputed domain names were first registered on April 1, 2019 and previously resolved to a test page. Currently, the disputed domain names resolve to a suspended account. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants The Complainants allege that they have satisfied all elements of the Policy, paragraph 4. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Complainants have jointly filed this Complaint against a single respondent. UDRP Panels have accepted the consolidation of multiple complainants when the complainants have a specific common grievance against the respondent, or the respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected the complainants in a similar fashion (see section 4.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions , Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)). Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainants have a common legal interest in the trademarks reproduced in the disputed domain names and accepts the joint Complaint. On the basis of the facts and evidence introduced by the Complainants, and with regard to paragraphs 4(a), (b) and (c) of the Policy, the Panel concludes as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainants have submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate their registered rights in the trademarks AMRESORTS, AM RESORTS, and AMREWARDS. The AMRESORTS trademark is reproduced in the disputed domain name <corporationamresorts.com>, and the AMREWARDS trademark is reproduced in the disputed domain name <corporationamrewards.com>. Both disputed domain names only differ from the respective trademarks by the addition of the dictionary term “corporation”. It is the consensus view of UDRP panels that the addition of such dictionary terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions , Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), sections 1.7 and 1.8 ). Both disputed domain names are therefore not sufficiently distinguishable from the Complainants’ AMRESORTS or AMREWARDS trademark, respectively. The Complainants have thus fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainants contend that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainants nor making any bona fide use of the disputed domain names. Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for actives such as impersonating or other types of fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent has sent fraudulent emails from the email addresses [...]@corporationamresorts.com (on June 7, 2019) and [...]@corporationrewards.com (on August 21, 2019) using multiple trademarks owned by the Complainants and promoting offers similar or equal to those being offered on the Complainants’ websites. This is deceptive, confusing and cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use ( Minerva S.A. v. El Yanko , WIPO Case No. D2018-0767 ). Based on the Complainants’ contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainants, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, have fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under the circumstances of this case, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainants’ trademarks when registering the disputed domain names. Panels have found that the use of a domain name for purposes other than to host a website may constitute bad faith. This includes cases where the domain name has been used to send deceptive emails ( WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.4 ). The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names in connection with fraudulent emails indicates that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ trademarks. Such use evidences bad faith in registration and use ( Minerva S.A. v. Miranda Nyenhuis , WIPO Case No. D2018-0763 ). Accordingly, the Complainants have fulfilled 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 disputed domain names, <corporationamresorts.com> and <corporationamrewards.com>, be transferred to the Complainant, The Coryn Group II, LLC. Tobias Zuberbühler Sole Panelist Date: December 10, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around corporationamresorts.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.