Margaritavilleorlandovacationrentals.com

The timeline behind margaritavilleorlandovacationrentals.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 Margaritaville Enterprises, LLC v. Domain Administrator / China Capital Investments Limited Claim Number: FA1801001769115 PARTIES Complainant is Margaritaville Enterprises, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Joel R. Feldman of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / China Capital Investments Limited ("Respondent"), Hong Kong. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <margaritavilleorlandovacationrentals.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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 Panelist in this proceeding. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 26, 2018; the Forum received payment on January 26, 2018. On January 29, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <margaritavilleorlandovacationrentals.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 January 30, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 20, 2018 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@margaritavilleorlandovacationrentals.com. Also on January 30, 2018, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 23, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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" 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 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 Complainant is the owner of the MARGARITAVILLE mark, a fanciful mark based on Jimmy Buffett's 1977 song of that name. Complainant has used the mark for more than 30 years in connection with a wide variety of goods and services, including real estate services, hotel services, entertainment services, fan club services, clothing, restaurant services, bar services, and retail store services. Complainant owns various United States and Hong Kong trademark registrations for MARGARITAVILLE. Respondent registered the disputed domain name <margaritavilleorlandovacationrentals.com> in March 2017. The domain name is being used for a website that says "coming soon" but contains no substantive content. Complainant states that Respondent has registered more than 200,000 domain names, several of which have been the subject of proceedings under the Policy, and accuses Respondent of being a serial cybersquatter. Complainant states that in response to its demand that Respondent relinquish the disputed domain name, Respondent offered to transfer the domain name to Complainant "in exchange for a lump sum figure," presumably for a price in excess of Respondent's out-of-pocket costs. Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <margaritavilleorlandovacationrentals.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's MARGARITAVILLE mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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." 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. 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(f), 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 (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."). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name <margaritavilleorlandovacationrentals.com> adds the generic term "Orlando vacation rentals" (omitting the spaces) and the ".com" top-level domain to Complainant's registered MARGARITAVILLE mark, which remains the distinctive portion of the domain name. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Margaritaville Enterprises, LLC v. David Hurst, FA 1744640 (Forum Sept. 25, 2017) (finding <margaritavillerealestate.com> confusingly similar to MARGARITAVILLE). The Panel considers the domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and there is no indication that Respondent has made any active use of the domain name. See, e.g., Kohler Co. v. Alberto Campos / Campos, FA 1745463 (Forum Sept. 14, 2017) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests where domain name was used solely to display "coming soon" web page); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Michael Ciarrocchi, FA 1703984 (Forum Dec. 7, 2016) (same). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location." Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the disputed domain name. In the absence of any explanation from Respondent, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name intending to use it in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant's fanciful mark, most likely either by selling the domain name or by using it to attract Internet users seeking Complainant, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain name for that purpose. See, e.g., Kohler Co. v. Alberto Campos / Campos, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances). This inference is not based primarily upon Respondent's offer to sell the domain name at a presumed premium over its out-of-pocket costs, which was made only in response to an overture by Complainant, although that offer is certainly consistent with the inference. The inference is also supported by Respondent's history as reflected in numerous prior proceedings under the Policy. See, e.g., Equifax Inc. v. Domain Administrator, China Capital Investment Ltd., D2017-1880 (WIPO Nov. 7, 2017) (ordering transfer of more than 100 domain names registered by Respondent that incorporated EQUIFAX mark or misspellings thereof). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <margaritavilleorlandovacationrentals.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: February 23, 2018 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.