Expedia-uk.com

The timeline behind expedia-uk.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 Expedia, Inc. v. Richard Mandanice Claim Number: FA0302000146598 PARTIES Complainant is Expedia, Inc., Bellevue, WA USA (“Complainant”) represented by Brett A. August of Pattishall McAuliffe Newbury Hilliard & Geraldson. Respondent is Richard Mandanice, Delson, PQ, CANADA (“Respondent”). REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <expedia-uk.com> registered with Parava Networks Inc d/b/a Registrateya.Com Naame.Com. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Sandra Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on February 24, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 26, 2003. On February 25, 2003, Parava Networks Inc d/b/a Registrateya.Com Naame.Com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <expedia-uk.com> is registered with Parava Networks Inc d/b/a Registrateya.Com Naame.Com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Parava Networks Inc d/b/a Registrateya.Com Naame.Com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Parava Networks Inc d/b/a Registrateya.Com Naame.Com 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 March 3, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 24, 2003 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@expedia-uk.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 31, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra Franklin 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 Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <expedia-uk.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EXPEDIA mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <expedia-uk.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <expedia-uk.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds a number of trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the EXPEDIA mark (Reg. No. 2,220,719 registered on January 26, 1999) in relation to a variety of goods and services, including travel agency services. Since October 1996, Complainant has been using the <expedia.com> domain name in connection with its goods and services. Respondent registered the <expedia-uk.com> domain name on January 9, 2003. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a pornographic website. 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 Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) 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 has established that it has rights in the EXPEDIA mark through registration with the USPTO and continuous use in commerce since 1996. Respondent’s <expedia-uk.com> domain name is confusing similar to Complainant’s mark because the disputed domain name integrates Complainant’s entire mark and adds a hyphen and the letters “uk” to the end of the mark. The addition of a hyphen and the letters “uk” do not significantly differentiate Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark because the mark is the dominant element of the domain name. See InfoSpace.com v. Tenenbaum Ofer, D2000-0075 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) (finding that “[t]he domain name ‘info-space.com’ is identical to Complainant’s INFOSPACE trademark. The addition of a hyphen and .com are not distinguishing features”); see also JVC Americas Corp. v. Macafee, CPR006 (CPR Nov. 10, 2000) (finding that the domain name registered by Respondent, <jvc-america.com>, is substantially similar to, and nearly identical to Complainant's JVC mark). The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has not submitted a Response in this proceeding. Therefore, the Panel may make reasonable inferences in favor of the Complainant and accept Complainant’s reasonable allegations as true. See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the Panel to draw adverse inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complaint); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that Complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence). Moreover, the Panel may infer that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because of Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names); see also Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because the Respondent never submitted a response nor provided the Panel with evidence to suggest otherwise). Respondent is using the <expedia-uk.com> domain name to divert Internet traffic to a pornographic website. The use of a domain name confusingly similar to a registered trademark to divert Internet consumers to a pornographic website is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that infringing on another's well-known mark to provide a link to a pornographic site is not a legitimate or fair use); see also Nat’l Football League Prop., Inc. v. One Sex Entm’t Co., D2000-0118 (WIPO Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names <chargergirls.com> and <chargergirls.net> where the Respondent linked these domain names to its pornographic website). Respondent has not provided the Panel with any evidence that it is commonly known by either EXPEDIA UK or <expedia-uk.com>, and there is no evidence in the record to the contrary. Therefore, Respondent has failed to establish that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (Interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent is using the <expedia-uk.com> domain name to divert Internet traffic to Respondent’s pornographic website. The use of a domain name confusingly similar to a registered trademark to divert Internet users to a pornographic website is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Ty, Inc. v. O.Z. Names, D2000-0370 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding that absent contrary evidence, linking the domain names in question to graphic, adult-oriented websites is evidence of bad faith); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (use of another's well-known mark to provide a link to a pornographic site is evidence of bad faith registration and use). Furthermore, preceding panels have found bad faith registration and use involving this Respondent. This pattern of registering domain names confusingly similar to registered trademarks evidences bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Gamesville.com, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 95294 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that Respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct of registering domain names to prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, which is evidence of registration and use in bad faith); see also General Elec. Co. v. Forddirect.com, Inc., D2000-0394 (WIPO June 22, 2000) (finding that the Respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct, by registering over fifty domain names such as <amazondirect.com> and <lycosdirect.com>, and intended to prevent holders from using their marks in corresponding domain names). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <expedia-uk.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra Franklin, Panelist Dated: April 7, 2003 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.