Marriottravelclub.com

The timeline behind marriottravelclub.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Marriott International, Inc. v. LODV S.A. Claim Number: FA1012001362479 PARTIES Complainant is Marriott International, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jason J. Mazur of Arent Fox LLP, Washington D.C., USA. Respondent is LODV S.A. (“Respondent”), Florida, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <marriottravelclub.com>, registered with NamesDirect. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically December 8, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment December 8, 2010. On December 9, 2010, NamesDirect confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <marriottravelclub.com> domain name is registered with NamesDirect and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NamesDirect verified that Respondent is bound by the NamesDirect registration agreement and thereby has agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On December 10, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 30, 2010, by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@marriottravelclub.com. Also on December 10, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On January 5, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson to sit as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 <marriottravelclub.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARRIOTT mark. 2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <marriottravelclub.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <marriottravelclub.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Marriott International, Inc., operates an international hotel, restaurant, hospitality, and timesharing company. Complainant owns the MARRIOTT mark and has used the mark since as early as 1960 in connection with its hotel and hospitality services. Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations for its MARRIOTT mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 899,900 issued September 29, 1990). Respondent, LODV S.A., registered the <marriottravelclub.com> domain name July 17, 2008. The disputed domain name resolves to a commercial website that purports to offer discount travel and accommodation services, including offers to books stays with Complainant and Complainant’s competitors in the hotel and timeshare industry. 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." Given 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 will draw such inferences as the Panel considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”). Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires Complainant to 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 to and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant maintains that it has established rights in the MARRIOTT mark. Federal trademark registrations are sufficient to show rights under the Policy. Here, Complainant holds a trademark registration of its MARRIOTT mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 899,900 issued September 29, 1990). federal trademark registrations. Here, Complainant does hold a trademark registration of its MARRIOTT mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 899,900 issued September 29, 1990). See Miller Brewing Co. v. Miller Family, FA 104177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 15, 2002) and Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007). This Panel finds that Complainant established rights in its MARRIOTT mark through trademark registration according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that Respondent’s <marriottravelclub.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARRIOTT mark. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark, merely deletes one letter “t”, adds the descriptive words “travel” and “club”, and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that the deletion of a single letter does not significantly distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive). The Panel also finds that the addition of the descriptive words “travel” and “club”, which are related to Complainant’s hotel and hospitality business, do not adequately differentiate the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business). Finally, the Panel finds that the addition of a gTLD does not significantly change the disputed domain name to avoid a finding of confusing similarity from Complainant’s mark. See Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARRIOTT mark; Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights to or Legitimate Interests Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <marriottravelclub.com> domain name. Previous panels have found that where a complainant is able to make a prima facie showing that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests, the burden then transfers to the respondent to prove that it does have such rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”). Complainant made a prima facie showing to support its allegations. Due to Respondent’s failure to submit a Response to the Complaint, the Panel may choose to find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). However, the Panel still looks to the record to determine whether evidence there suggests that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c). Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, <marriottravelclub.com>. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “LODV S.A.,” which is not nominally similar to the disputed domain name. The Panel does not find any additional evidence that would provide a basis for determining that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <marriottravel.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name). Next, Complainant urges that it has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its MARRIOTT mark in the disputed domain name but that Respondent uses the <marriottravel.com> domain name to resolve to a commercial website that offers travel services for Complainant along with Complainant’s competitors. Respondent likely receives referral fees from these third-party businesses. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host a website that directs Internet users to Complainant’s competitors is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that the respondent’s commercial use of a confusingly similar domain name suggests that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant urges that Respondent’s use of the <marriottravel.com> domain name disrupts its business. Respondent may be redirecting Internet users who seek to use Complainant’s travel services to Respondent’s own website as a result of the confusingly similar disputed domain name and instead to purchase similar services through Complainant’s competitors. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does disrupt Complainant’s business, which is evidence of bad faith use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s business); see Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent’s competing website). The <marriottravelclub.com> domain name resolves to a website that purports to offer travel deals with Complainant and Complainant’s competitor’s in the travel industry. Internet users searching for Complainant’s website may find Respondent’s website instead due to Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name. Users may become confused as to Complainant’s sponsorship of, or association with, the disputed domain name, resolving website, and services offered. Respondent attempts to profit from this confusion by drawing attention to its website or receiving referral fees. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name supports findings of bad faith use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also Asbury Auto. Group, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 958542 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to advertise car dealerships that competed with the complainant’s business would likely lead to confusion among Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of those competing dealerships, and was therefore evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith; Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <marriottravelclub.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist Dated: January 19, 2011. 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.