Greyhoundtickets.org

The timeline behind greyhoundtickets.org

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 Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Stephen Slayton Claim Number: FA2110001969206 PARTIES Complainant is Greyhound Lines, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kim Boyle of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Stephen Slayton (“Respondent”), Virginia, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <greyhoundtickets.org>, 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. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 15, 2021. The Forum received payment on October 15, 2021. On October 18, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <greyhoundtickets.org> 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 October 19, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 8, 2021 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@greyhoundtickets.org. Also on October 19, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 November 11, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 Founded in 1914, Complainant, Greyhound Lines, Inc., is the largest provider of intercity bus transportation, serving more than 2300 destinations across North America. The company became known as GREYHOUND in or around 1926. The Greyhound name and logo of the running dog have become American icons that are familiar to the nearly 16 million passengers served by Complainant each year. Complainant has rights in the GREYHOUND mark based upon numerous registrations, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The <greyhoundtickets.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <greyhoundtickets.org> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant’s GREYHOUND mark. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because it attempts to pass the domain name off as being affiliated with Complainant and displays third-party links. Respondent has registered and uses the <greyhoundtickets.org> domain name in bad faith. Respondent offered an unreasonably high sale price for the domain name which is further evidence of bad faith. Respondent also confuses customers who attempt to find Complainant’s domain name for commercial gain. Lastly, Respondent had constructive and/or actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the GREYHOUND mark given the mark’s fame and Complainant’s registration of the mark with the USPTO. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has shown that it has rights in the GREYHOUND mark based upon numerous registrations worldwide, the first being with the USPTO (No. 541,198, registered April 17, 1951). The Panel finds Respondent’s <greyhoundtickets.org> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the entire mark and merely adds the descriptive word “tickets”, which not only fails to distinguish the domain name from the mark but is an obvious allusion to Complainant’s business. See Kohler Co. v. Curley, FA 890812 (Forum Mar. 5, 2007). The inconsequential “.org” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) may be ignored. Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e. (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Since 1996 Complainant has advertised its transportation services at its “www.greyhound.com” website, where consumers may make reservations and purchase tickets. Respondent’s <greyhoundtickets.org> domain name was registered on April 19, 2011, many decades after Complainant has shown that its GREYHOUND mark had become famous. The <greyhoundtickets.org> domain name resolves to a website that displays images of Complainant’s buses and Complainant’s famous running dog logo, together with third party pay-per-click links. These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <greyhoundtickets.org> domain name. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, i.e. (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; (iii) Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s famous GREYHOUND mark when Respondent registered the <greyhoundtickets.org> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to masquerade as Complainant in order to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source of Respondent’s website and of the services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant has established this element. It is unnecessary to address Complainant’s contention that Respondent’s counteroffer to transfer the Domain Name to Complainant for $13,000 in September 2021, almost 10 years after registration of the Domain Name, demonstrated bad faith registration. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <greyhoundtickets.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: November 15, 2021 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.