Radissonhotellondon.com

The timeline behind radissonhotellondon.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 Radisson Hotels International, Inc. v. Smith A / radissonhotellondon.com Claim Number: FA1103001379040 PARTIES Complainant is Radisson Hotels International, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Elizabeth C. Buckingham of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Smith A / radissonhotellondon.com (“Respondent”), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <radissonhotellondon.com>, registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 18, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 21, 2011. On March 21, 2011, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <radissonhotellondon.com> domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On March 22, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 11, 2011 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@radissonhotellondon.com. Also on March 22, 2011, 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 April 14, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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" 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 a 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 <radissonhotellondon.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RADISSON mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <radissonhotellondon.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <radissonhotellondon.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Radisson Hotels International, Inc., operates more than 425 hotels in over 65 countries. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the RADISSON mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), the Europe Union Office of Harmonization for the Internal Market (“OHIM”), and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”), among many others: USPTO Reg. No. 920,862 issued Sept. 21, 1971; OHIM Reg. No. 51,672 issued April 27, 1999; Reg. No. 1,756,451 issued July 14, 2000; CIPO Reg. No. TMA169,624 issued February 1, 2000; and Reg. No. TMA618,351 issued September 1, 2004. Respondent, Smith A / radissonhotellondon.com, registered the <radissonhotellondon.com> domain name on January 5, 2011. The disputed domain name resolves to a website for a fictitious hotel which is used to impersonate Complainant as part of a phishing scheme to defraud job seekers or potential guests. 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. 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 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 The Panel finds that Complainant’s registrations with the trademark authorities of the U.S., the European Union, and Canada are sufficient proof of Complainant’s rights in the RADISSON mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), even though Respondent lives or operates outside the countries where the marks are registered. See Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. r9.net, FA 445594 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding the complainant’s numerous registrations for its HONEYWELL mark throughout the world sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the mark under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction). Respondent’s <radissonhotellondon.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RADISSON mark because the disputed domain name merely combines Complainant’s mark with the descriptive term “hotel,” the geographic term “london,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that adding descriptive or geographic terms to Complainant’s mark does not dispel confusing similarity. See Eastman Chem. Co. v. Patel, FA 524752 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2005) (“Therefore, the Panel concludes that the addition of a term descriptive of Complainant’s business, the addition of a hyphen, and the addition of the gTLD ‘.com’ are insufficient to distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark.”); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding that the addition of geographic terms, such as “cancun” to the end of the CHEAPTICKETS mark in the <cheapticketscancun.com>, <cheapticketscancun.biz>, <cheapticketscancun.net>, and <cheapticketscancun.org> domain names, does not overcome a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The Panel also determines that adding a gTLD does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar). The Panel concludes that Respondent’s <radissonhotellondon.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RADISSON mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel finds Complainant has proven Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests The requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) dictate that Complainant must first present a prima facie case against Respondent before the burden to prove rights and legitimate interests transfers to Respondent. In this case, Complainant has satisfied its burden of presenting a sufficient prima facie case. Respondent, however, has failed to respond to the Complainant, which entitles the Panel to infer that Complainant’s allegations are true as stated. The Panel thus finds that Respondent does not have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“Given Respondent’s failure to submit a substantive answer in a timely fashion, the Panel accepts as true all of the allegations of the complaint.”); see also Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because the respondent never submitted a response or provided the panel with evidence to suggest otherwise). The Panel will also analyze the evidence in the record against the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors to determine whether Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant alleges that Respondent is not a licensee or subsidiary of Complainant and has not been authorized to use Complainant’s RADISSON mark. The WHOIS information for the <radissonhotellondon.com> domain name indicates that the registrant is “Smith A / radissonhotellondon.com.” Although the WHOIS information seems to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, Complainant contends that this information alone, without other evidence supporting an association that existed prior to the domain name registration, is insufficient to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel agrees and accordingly concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <radissonhotellondon.com> domain name. See Yoga Works, Inc. v. Arpita, FA 155461 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not “commonly known by” the <shantiyogaworks.com> domain name despite listing its name as “Shanti Yoga Works” in its WHOIS contact information because there was “no affirmative evidence before the Panel that the respondent was ever ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name prior to its registration of the disputed domain name”); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Dough, FA 245971 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 5, 2004) (finding that although “the WHOIS information for the <yasexhoo.com> domain name states that the registrant is YASEXHOO . . . this alone is insufficient to show that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name”). Complainant asserts that Respondent’s <radissonhotellondon.com> domain name resolves to a website for a fictitious hotel, Radisson Hotel London. Complainant argues that this website displays Complainant’s RADISSON mark and photographs of Complainant’s legitimate hotel in London, Ontario, Canada. Complainant alleges that this website is functioning as a phishing site that attempts to defraud job seekers and potential guests. As evidence supporting this claim, Complainant provides an email from the recruits@radissonhotellondon.com email address that was forwarded to Complainant by a concerned recipient, purportedly a job offer from the “Human Resource Manager” at Radisson Hotel London. The Panel finds that using the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant for fraudulent phishing purposes does not satisfy Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii) as it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Nelson, FA 241972 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 29, 2004) (finding that using a domain name in a fraudulent scheme to deceive Internet users into providing their credit card and personal information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding that using a domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s credit application website and attempted to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s clients was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). The Panel finds Complainant has proven Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent uses the RADISSON mark in the <radissonhotellondon.com> domain name and on the resolving website in order to attract Internet users seeking Complainant. The use of the mark, especially in connection with a website purportedly related to a hotel, is likely to confuse consumers into believing that Respondent is somehow affiliated or connected with Complainant. Respondent is using the disputed domain name for phishing purposes, and presumably receives some sort of financial gain from attracting Internet users to the website. The Panel finds these efforts to attract, mislead and profit from Complainant’s customers demonstrates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Carroll, FA 97035 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the domain name, for commercial gain, to intentionally attract users to a direct competitor of the complainant). Respondent use the RADISSON mark in the <radissonhotellondon.com> domain name but it also displays the mark and photographs of Complainant’s legitimate hotel in London, Ontario, Canada on the resolving website which advertises a fictitious hotel. Complainant argues that it does not have a hotel in London in the United Kingdom, and thus Respondent is attempting to impersonate Complainant to Internet users and create confusion for phishing purposes. The Panel finds that operating a phishing scheme via a confusingly similar disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Nelson, FA 241972 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 29, 2004) (“The domain name <billing-juno.com> was registered and used in bad faith by using the name for fraudulent purposes.”); see also Hess Corp. v. GR, FA 770909 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2006) (finding that the respondent demonstrated bad faith registration and use because it was attempting to acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users through a confusingly similar domain name). The Panel finds Complainant has proven 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 <radissonhotellondon.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: April 21, 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.