Royalcaribbean-hr.com

The timeline behind royalcaribbean-hr.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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd v. Ganea Florentin Case No. D2024-0782 1. The Parties The Complainant is Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd, United States of America (“United States”), represented by ZeroFox, United States. The Respondent is Ganea Florentin, Romania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <royalcaribbean-hr.com> (the “Domain Name”) 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 February 20, 2024. On February 21, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 21, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Registration Private, DomainsByProxy.com) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 23, 2024, 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 amendment to the Complaint on March 7, 2024. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 March 8, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 28, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 2, 2024. page 2 The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on April 5, 2024. 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 is a cruise line founded in 1968 in Norway and organized as a wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Caribbean Group since 1997. Currently based in Miami, Florida, United States, the Complainant is, per the Complaint, the largest cruise line by revenue and second largest by passenger count. The Complainant owns trademark registrations for ROYAL CARIBBEAN, including the United States trademark registration No. 1397148, ROYAL CARIBBEAN (word), filed on October 11, 1985 and registered on June 10, 1986, for services in international class 39, and the United States trademark registration No. 1817745, ROYAL CARIBBEAN (word), filed on December 28, 1992 and registered on January 25, 1994, for goods and services in international classes 9, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, and 28. The Domain Name was registered on January 11, 2024, and leads to an inactive parking web page, which currently also shows the phrase “blocked content”. 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 Domain Name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the 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 Domain Name; and (iii) the 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. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. page 3 The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, a hyphen and the letters “hr” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, t he Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not form part of the comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons (Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No. D2017-0275; Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik, WIPO Case No. D2002-0122). 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. 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 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 Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Furthermore, the Panel considers that the composition of the Domain Name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. The Respondent has not submitted any response and has not claimed any such rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name. As per the Complainant, the Respondent was not authorized to register the Domain Name. The Respondent did not demonstrate any prior to the notice of the dispute use of the Domain Name or a trademark corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, the Domain Name resolves to a parking page. 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. page 4 Because the Complainant’s ROYAL CARIBBEAN trademark was used and registered by the Complainant at the time of the Domain Name registration and enjoyed reputation, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent had the Complainant’s trademark in mind when registering the Domain Name (Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226). Furthermore, the whole of the Complainant’s trademark is included in the Domain Name. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the non-use of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding. Although panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, and (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s ROYAL CARIBBEAN trademark, and the composition of the Domain Name, which reproduces the Complainant’s mark in its entirety along with the letters “hr”, short for “human resources” which implies an employment related page, and the provision of the incomplete or false contact details by the Respondent when registering the Domain Name (the courier service was not able to deliver the Written Notice due to bad address), and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third 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 Domain Name <royalcaribbean-hr.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Marina Perraki/ Marina Perraki Sole Panelist Date: April 19, 2024

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