Valuetrip.com

The timeline behind valuetrip.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.

DECISION Woody Development Corporation a/k/a Value Trips, Inc. v TheTrip.com Claim Number: FA0102000096580 PARTIES The Complainant is Tony Marsella Woody Development Corporation a/k/a Value Trips, Inc., Tampa, FL, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is TheTrip.com, Englewood, CO, USA ("Respondent"). REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is "valuetrip.com" registered with Network Solutions, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as a panelist in this proceeding. John J. Upchurch as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on February 1, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 6, 2001. On February 2, 2001, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "valuetrip.com" is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. 5.0 registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On February 8, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 28, 2001 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@valuetrip.com by e-mail. Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 8, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its Decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from the Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant asserts the following: Respondent’s domain name, valuetrip.com, is essentially identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered mark VALUETRIPS.COM. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. Respondent registered and used the domain name at issue in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent has not submitted a response in this matter. FINDINGS Complainant, Woody Development Corporation a.k.a. Value Trips, Inc., owns the registered mark VALUETRIPS.COM, which it has used internationally in connection with travel agency and entertainment services. Complainant has used its registered mark continuously since April 1, 1998. Respondent, The Trip.com, provides identical services as the Complainant. Currently, Respondent maintains over fifty domain name registrations. On two separate occasions, Complainant sent a Cease and Desist letter to Respondent, to no avail. Respondent, through its attorney has refused to transfer the infringing domain name. To date, Respondent has not used the domain name at issue. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant’s rights are evidenced by its registered mark, VALUETRIPS.COM. The Panel finds that Respondent’s domain name, valuetrip.com, is virutually identical to Complainant’s well-established mark because the only difference is the "s" has been deleted. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. HarperStephens, D2000-0716 (WIPO Sept. 5, 2000) (finding that deleting the letter "s" from the Complainant’s UNIVERSAL STUDIOS STORE mark does not change the overall impression of the mark and thus is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark); see also Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Indus. Sales Corp., FA 95856 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that confusion would result when Internet users, intending to access Complainant’s website, think that an affiliation of some sort exists between the Complainant and the Respondent, when in fact, no such relationship would exist). Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name at issue, nor is Respondent using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods, services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Adamovske Strojirny v Tatu Rautiainen, D2000-1394 (WIPO Dec. 20, 2000) (finding that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where the Respondent is not commonly known by the distinct ADAST mark and has made no use of the domain name in question). Moreover, Respondent asserted no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, which entitles the Panel to conclude Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Boeing Co. v. Bressi, D2000-1164 (WIPO Oct. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the Respondent has advanced no basis on which the Panel could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names and no use of the domain names has been proven); see also Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. D3M Virtual Reality Inc. and D3M Domain Sales, AF-0336 (eResolution Sept. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where no such right or interest is immediately apparent to the Panel and Respondent has not come forward to suggest any such right or interest that it may possess). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds that because Respondent is Complainant’s competitor, it had to have been aware of Complainant’s mark prior to registering the disputed domain name, which constitutes bad faith. See Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd., D2000-0471 (WIPO Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the Respondent demonstrated bad faith where the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s famous mark when registering the domain name as well as aware of the deception and confusion that would inevitably follow if he used the domain names); see also Kraft Foods (Norway) v. Wide, D2000-0911 (WIPO Sept. 23, 2000) (finding that the fact "that the Respondent chose to register a well known mark to which he has no connections or rights indicates that he was in bad faith when registering the domain name at issue"). Further, the evidence supports Respondent has made no use of the disputed domain since its registration, which also demonstrates bad faith. See Alitalia –Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v. Colour Digital, D2000-1260 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent made no use of the domain name in question and there are no other indications that the Respondent could have registered and used the domain name in question for any non-infringing purpose); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith). Finally, Complainant has shown Respondent registered several infringing domain names unrelated to its products or services. See Armstrong Holdings, Inc. v. JAZ Associates, FA 95234 (Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that the Respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by registering multiple domain names, which infringe upon others’ famous and registered trademarks); see also America Online, Inc. v. iDomainNames.com, FA 93766 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 24, 2000) (finding a pattern of conduct where Respondent has registered many domain names unrelated to the Respondent’s business which infringe on famous marks and web sites). DECISION Having established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be and is hereby granted. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name, valuetrip.com, be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. Honorable John J. Upchurch, Retired Judge Arbitrator Dated: March 12, 2001 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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