Expediaedia.com, Expediaprtnercentral.com

The timeline behind expediaedia.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

DECISION Expedia, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico Claim Number: FA2208002010203 PARTIES Complainant is Expedia, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David M. Kelly of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico (“Respondent”), Panama. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <expediaedia.com> and <expediaprtnercentral.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. James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 29, 2022; the Forum received payment on August 29, 2022. On August 30, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <expediaedia.com> and <expediaprtnercentral.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 August 31, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 20, 2022 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@expediaedia.com, postmaster@expediaprtnercentral.com. Also on August 31, 2022, 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 September 27, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is an Internet based travel agent and has provided evidence of its ownership of the following United States registered service marks: · United States service mark EXPEDIA, registration number 2,224,559, registered on the Principal Register on February 16, 1999, for services in International Class 42; · United States service mark EXPEDIA, registration number 2,220,719, registered on the Principal Register on January 26, 1999, for services in international class 39; · United States service mark EXPEDIA, registration number 2,610,290, registered on the Principal Register on August 20, 2002, for services in international class Class 35. Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains a corporate website to which its domain name <expediagroup.com> resolves, as well as websites at <https://expediapartnersolutions.com/> and <https://www.expediapartnercentral.com/>. The disputed domain name <expediaedia.com> was registered on September 17, 2021, and <expediaprtnercentral.com> was registered on May 27, 2018. Each of the disputed domain names on the balance of probabilities, resolves to a website from which Respondent is receiving pay-per-click revenue. The disputed domain name <expediaedia.com> resolves to what on the balance of probabilities is a pay-per-click website that displays search links directly referencing Complainant and its EXPEDIA-branded services, namely, “Expedia Flights,” “Hotel Reservations Booking,” and “Expedia Booking”. The links connect to pages that in turn display sponsored-link ads for directly competing travel websites. The disputed domain name <expediaprtnercentral.com> is being used to redirect web traffic to various third-party websites including a website offering a software download “fire shield for Chrome,” a website advertising cars, and a website advertising credit-card services. There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar’s WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by the Forum for verification of the registration details of the disputed domain names. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant provides a travel booking service under the EXPEDIA and has provided evidence of its ownership of the following United States registered service marks: · United States service mark EXPEDIA, registration number 2,224,559, registered on the Principal Register on February 16, 1999, for services in International Class 42; · United States service mark EXPEDIA, registration number 2,220,719, registered on the Principal Register on January 26, 1999, for services in international class 39; · United States service mark EXPEDIA, registration number 2,610,290, registered on the Principal Register on August 20, 2002, for services in international class Class 35. Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains a corporate website to which its domain name <expediagroup.com> resolves, as well as websites at <https://expediapartnersolutions.com/> and <https://www.expediapartnercentral.com/>. The disputed domain name <expediaedia.com> was registered on September 17, 2021, and <expediaprtnercentral.com> was registered on May 27, 2018. Each of the disputed domain name, resolve on the balance of probabilities to websites from which Respondent is receiving pay-per-click revenue. The disputed domain name <expediaedia.com> resolves to what on the balance of probabilities is a pay-per-click website that displays search links directly referencing Complainant and its EXPEDIA-branded services, namely, “Expedia Flights,” “Hotel Reservations Booking,” and “Expedia Booking”. The links connect to pages that in turn display sponsored-link ads for directly competing travel websites. The disputed domain name <expediaprtnercentral.com> is being used to redirect web traffic to various third-party websites including a website offering a software download “fire shield for Chrome,” a website advertising cars, and a website advertising credit-card services. There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar’s WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by the Forum for verification of the registration details of the disputed domain names. 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 provided convincing, uncontested evidence to prove that it has rights in the EXPEDIA mark, established by its ownership of its portfolio of United States service mark registrations described above and extensive use of the mark in its travel booking business. The disputed domain name <expediaedia.com> consists of Complainant’s mark in its entirety, in combination with the element “edia”, which is a merely repetition of the last four letters of Complainant’s mark, together with the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension <.com>. The disputed domain name <expediaprtnercentral.com>) consists of Complainant’s mark in its entirety, in combination with the elements “prtner” and “central” and the gTLD extension <.com>. The element “prtner” has no meaning and this Panel accepts that it is likely to be taken to be a misspelling of the word “partner” as submitted by Complainant. The element “central” is generic. It is noteworthy that the disputed domain name is almost identical to Complainant’s own <expediaprtnercentral.com> domain name. Complainant’s EXPEDIA mark is the dominant and only distinctive element in each of the disputed domain names. The other elements have no distinguishing character. The gTLD extension <.com> would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for a domain name in each case and therefore does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between either of the disputed domain names and Complainant’s EXPEDIA mark. This Panel finds therefore that each of disputed domain names <expediaedia.com> and <expediaprtnercentral.com> is confusingly similar to the EXPEDIA mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that · Respondent is not, and has not, been commonly known by the disputed domain names; · there is nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information or the record that demonstrates that Respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names prior to their registration; · Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its EXPEDIA mark which is the dominant element in each of the disputed domain names; · Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name <expediaprtnercentral.com> that differs from Complainant’s own domain name <expediapartnercentral.com> by a single letter constitutes typosquatting, which does not evidence a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant has adduced uncontested evidence that its EXPEDIA mark is well known globally as a travel booking website. The EXPEDIA mark is distinctive and the dominant element in each of the disputed domain names. Given the extent of Complainant’s prior rights and reputation, it is implausible that the registrant chose and registered the disputed domain names without knowledge of Complainant, its rights and its mark. It has been noted that the disputed domain name <expediaprtnercentral.com> is almost identical to Complainant’s own <expediaprtnercentral.com> domain name. On the balance of probabilities this Panel finds therefore that each of the disputed domain names was chosen and registered in bad faith in order to take predatory advantage of Complainant’s name, mark, rights, goodwill and reputation in the EXPEDIA mark. Each of the disputed domain names, resolves on the balance of probabilities to websites from which Respondent is receiving pay-per-click revenue. In an annex to the Complaint, Complainant has adduced in evidence screen captures of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, these show that on the balance of probabilities Respondent is receiving pay-per-click revenue from to websites from her use of each of the disputed domain names. The disputed domain name <expediaedia.com> resolves to what, on the balance of probabilities, is a pay-per-click website that displays search links directly referencing Complainant and its EXPEDIA-branded services, namely, “Expedia Flights,” “Hotel Reservations Booking,” and “Expedia Booking”. The links connect to pages that in turn display sponsored-link ads for directly competing travel websites. The disputed domain name <expediaprtnercentral.com> is being used to redirect web traffic to various third-party websites including a website offering a software download “fire shield for Chrome,” a website advertising cars, and a website advertising credit-card services. Such intentional use of each of the disputed domain names which are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark to confuse, mislead and misdirect Internet traffic to Respondent’s websites constitutes use of each of the disputed domain names in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy. Furthermore, in making this finding, this Panel is fortified by the fact that Complainant has shown that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registration of domain names which have been held to be confusingly similar to trademarks owned by Complainant’s and third parties, as evidenced by the list of adverse decisions against Respondent under the Policy listed above. As this Panel has found that each of the disputed domain names was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has therefore succeeded in the third element of the test in 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 <expediaedia.com> and <expediaprtnercentral.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. James Bridgeman SC, Panelist Dated: September 30, 2022 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.