Stayz-vrbo.com

The timeline behind stayz-vrbo.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION HomeAway.com, Inc., Stayz Pty Limited v. Richard Muller Case No. D2023-4398 1. The Parties The Complainant is HomeAway.com, Inc., Stayz Pty Limited, United States of America, represented by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, United States of America. The Respondent is Richard Muller, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <stayz-vrbo.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 24, 2023. On October 24, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 24, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY / PRIVACY SERVICE PROVIDED BY WITHHELD BY PRIVACY EHF) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 26, 2023, providing the registrant and contact inf ormation disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on October 27, 2023. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 1, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, p arag raph 5, the due date f or Response was November 21, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on November 22, 2023. The Center appointed Miguel B. O’Farrell as the sole panelist in this matter on December 5, 2023. The Panel f inds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and page 2 Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainants are HomeAway.com Inc. and its subsidiary Stayz Pty Limited, collectively “the Complainant”. The Complainant is the record owner, itself or by assignment from its predecessors-in-interest, of the VRBO and STAYZ marks. The Complainant VRBO’s predecessors-in-interest include Vrbo.com, LLC and Vrbo.com, Inc. Both companies were acquired by the Complainant on December 31, 2010. The Complainant and its predecessors have been offering rental services under the VRBO mark f or nearly 25 years. The Complainant is owned by Expedia Inc. one the world’s largest travel companies. Expedia’s travel brands, including VRBO and STAYZ, among others, of f er travelers a comprehensive selection of travel options. Expedia acquired the Complainant and all of its brands, including VRBO in November 2015 and expanded into the f ast-growing USD 100 billion alternative accommodation market. The Complainant owns many trademark and service mark registrations f or VRBO and STAYZ in several jurisdictions around the world, including the f ollowing. - United States of America Trademark Registration No. 5681113 VRBO, registered on February 19, 2019, in classes 9 and 43; - United States of America Trademark Registration No. 2820989 VRBO, registered on March 9, 2004, in class 36; - European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 015778848VRBO, registered on March 3, 2017, in classes 9, 36, and 43; - Canadian Trademark Registration No. 1586704 VRBO, registered on November 10, 2014, in class 36; - Australian Trademark Registration No. 1141191 STAYZ, registered on October 16, 2009, in classes 16, 35, 36, 39, and 43. The Complainant’s <vrbo.com> website has received an estimate average of over 40 to 57 million monthly visits in the past year. The Complainant operates a leading vacation rental marketplace in Australia under the name and mark STAYZ through the website <stayz.com.au> since 2001. The company and brand were acquired by HomeAway in 2013, which then became a part of the Complainant’s Expedia corporate group in 2015, when HomeAway was acquired by Expedia. The disputed domain name was registered on September 1, 2023, and is used as a redirect to the Complainant’s website <stayz.com.au>. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. page 3 Notably, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is likely monetizing the disputed domain name f or af f iliate income offered by the Complainant and its parent Expedia by passing the redirect through multiple intermediate services to hide the use of the disputed domain name. Since the Complainant has not authorized the registration or use of the disputed domain name, the Respondent could at any time use the disputed domain name f or another purpose, including a nef arious scheme. Given the Respondents actions, there can be no doubt that the Respondent is acting in bad f aith to prof it f rom the goodwill associated with the Complainants VRBO and STAYZ marks. Finally, the Complainant requests the Panel to issue a decision ordering the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the f ollowing, namely 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 f aith. Consolidation The Panel agrees that the naming of the parent and its subsidiary as Complainant is perfectly acceptable in this proceeding in which the Respondent is using the disputed domain name which is conf usingly similar to trademarks in which the parent company and its subsidiary have demonstrated common legal interests due to their af filiate relationship and theref ore share a common grievance against the Respondent. Section 4.11.1 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Editio n (“ WIPO Overview 3.0”) The Panel f inds that the consolidation of multiple complainants in this case is both equitable and ef f icient. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions primarily as a standing requirement. As set f orth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview 3.0 the standing test f or conf using similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name to determine whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark. The test involves a side-by-side comparison of the disputed domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. The Panel considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s STAYZ and VRBO trademarks. The disputed domain name <stayz-vrbo.com> incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks STAYZ and VRBO in their entirety separated by a hyphen, which does not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity. page 4 The “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and is generally disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test, as set forth in section 1.11.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks STAYZ and VRBO in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are f ulf illed. 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 of ten 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 f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied 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 f orward 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 available record, the Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel is satisf ied that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademarks STAYS and VRBO mentioned in section 4 above (Factual Background) when it registered the disputed domain name on September 1, 2023. By that time, the Complainant had for many years ago registered and intensely used the distinctive trademarks STAYS and VRBO. By registering the disputed domain name including the Complainant’s trademarks STAYS and VRBO in their entirety separated by a hyphen the Respondent was targeting the Complainant and its business with the purpose of conf using Internet users and lead them to think that the relevant website belongs to or is endorsed by the Complainant with the intention to capitalize on the fame of the Complainant’s trademarks for its own benef it. The f act that there is a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible explanation for the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name, the nature of the disputed domain name, the passing-off of the Complainant, the redirection of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s website, and the use of a privacy service, are indicative of bad faith (as stated in section 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). The Panel f inds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad f aith. For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy have been f ulf illed. page 5 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <stayz-vrbo.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Miguel B. O’Farrell/ Miguel B. O’Farrell Sole Panelist Date: December 18, 2023

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.