Fourseasonstravelocity.shop

The timeline behind fourseasonstravelocity.shop

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 Travelscape, LLC v. Gina Kaminski Case No. D2025-0793 1. The Parties Complainant is Travelscape, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, United States. Respondent is Gina Kaminski, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <fourseasonstravelocity.shop> (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 26, 2025. On February 26, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 26, 2025, 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,Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email to Complainant on February 27, 2025, p roviding the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 27, 2025. On the same day, the Respondent sent two email communications to the Center. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 5, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 25, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 31, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on April 7, 2025. 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 According to the Complaint: “Travelocity, founded in 1996, is a leading provider of consumer-direct travel services for the leisure and business traveler. [...] Complainant markets and distributes travel-related products and services directly to individuals using its mark TRAVELOCITY and its various brand websites and contact centers. [...] Indeed, Travelocity is one of the most recognized online travel brands, offering thousands of travel destinations to millions of travelers per month. [...] Complainant is owned by Expedia, Inc. (“Expedia”), one of the world’s largest travel companies.” Complainant holds numerous registered trademarks for the mark TRAVELOCITY, including: United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Reg. No. 2,254,700, registered on June 12, 1999 in connection with, among other things, “electronic retailing including travel related items”, “airline, car rental, tour package reservations services”, and “providing hotel information and reservation services”, with a March 12, 1996 date of first use on commerce; USPTO Reg. No. 2,466,132, registered on July 3, 2001 in connection with, among other things, “transportation reservation services”, with a March 12, 1996 date of first use in commerce; and European Union Reg. No. 000163642, registered on September 14, 2001 in connection with, among other things, “computer software product providing travel information and reservation services” and “transportation services”. Complainant (which term includes Complainant’s predecessors) registered the domain name <travelocity.com> in 1996, and has used that domain name since 1996 to operate a commercial website offering Complainant’s travel-related services under the TRAVELOCITY mark. Since November 2024, Complainant asserts, this website has received an average of more than 5.1 million visitors per month. Complainant’s TRAVELOCITY mark is promoted in social media. There are more than 561,000 followers of the TRAVELOCITY page on Facebook, and more than 203,000 followers of the corresponding page on X. Complainant alleges: “Travelocity and the TRAVELOCITY.COM website have received or been nominated for several awards over the years, including the ‘World’s Leading Travel Internet Site’ for nine consecutive years from 1997 through 2006, the ‘World’s Leading Online Travel Agency’ (2013-2022), the ‘World’s Leading Travel Booking Website’ (2008-2012), and the United States’ Leading Online Travel Agency (2021-2024).” Annexed to the Complaint are numerous media articles corroborating Complainants assertion that the TRAVELOCITY mark is well known. The Domain Name was registered on June 10, 2024. The Domain Name resolves to a website purporting to offer travel-related information and reservations under the name “LAKBAY Hotels and Flights.” 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. page 3 B. Respondent Respondent did not formally reply to Complainant’s contentions. The Respondent sent however two informal email communications on February 27, 2025 stating “Please remove me from your data base. I do not own any companies or domaind with this name. Nor have i ever done businesd. Its an error” and “Please note this is fraud don't have a company or that domain. Complaint filer with intent to defraud.” 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which 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 Complainant has rights; and (ii) 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 The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark TRAVELOCITY through extensive registration and longstanding use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that mark. The TRAVELOCITY mark is entirely reproduced within the Domain Name, and is recognizable within the Domain Name despite the additional words “four seasons.” Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in connection with the Domain Name. Respondent has not come forward in this proceeding to deny any of the allegations in the Complaint, or dispute any of the evidence annexed thereto. On the undisputed record, it is apparent that Respondent targeted Complainant’s well-known TRAVELOCITY trademark in order to siphon Internet traffic to Respondent’s website, which purports to offer the same type of travel-related services as Complainant offers. Respondent’s conduct plainly does not invest her with a legitimate interest vis-à-vis the Domain Name. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). page 4 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation,” are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”: (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or (ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. The Panel concludes, on this undisputed and clear record, that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. The Panel incorporates here its discussion above in the “Rights or Legitimate Interests” section. It is clear that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name, given the fame and distinctiveness of that mark and the content of Respondent’s website. Respondent’s conduct constitutes bad faith use within the meaning of the above-quoted Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). 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 <fourseasonstravelocity.shop> be transferred to Complainant. /Robert A. Badgley/ Robert A. Badgley Sole Panelist Date: April 21, 2025

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