Radisson-hotels.host

The timeline behind radisson-hotels.host

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 Radisson Hospitality Belgium BV/SRL v. Dmitriy Mess Claim Number: FA2210002015253 PARTIES Complainant is Radisson Hospitality Belgium BV/SRL (“Complainant”), represented by Ashley M. Bennett Ewald of LATHROP GPM, LLP, US. Respondent is Dmitriy Mess (“Respondent”), RU. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <radisson-hotels.host>, registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU 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. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 7, 2022; Forum received payment on October 7, 2022. The Complaint was received in both Russian and English. On October 11, 2022, Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <radisson-hotels.host> domain name is registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU 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 17, 2022, Forum served the Russian language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Russian Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 7, 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@radisson-hotels.host. Also on October 17, 2022, the Russian language 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On November 15, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown QC Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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. Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceedings The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in the Russian language, thereby making the language of the proceedings to be in Russian. However, it is apparent from all of the evidence, particularly the fact that the offending website is written in the English language, that Respondent is proficient in English. Accordingly, and pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Russian language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, in the absence of a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceeding may be conducted in the English language. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant made the following contentions. Complainant owns and operates hundreds of hotels internationally. Complainant submits that it has rights in the RADISSON mark based upon registration with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 51,672, registered April 27, 1999) and other trademark agencies worldwide including in the Russian Federation. See Compl. Ex. C. Respondent’s <radisson-hotels.host> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it contains the RADISSON mark in its entirety, merely adding the word “hotels” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.host” to form the disputed domain name. Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <radisson-hotels.host> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s RADISSON mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and to send fraudulent emails. Respondent registered and uses the <radisson-hotels.host> domain name in bad faith. Respondent passes off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the RADISSON mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. Complainant is a prominent Belgian company that owns and operates hundreds of hotels internationally and provides related goods and services. 2. Complainant has established its rights in the RADISSON mark based upon registration with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 51,672, registered April 27, 1999) and other trademark agencies worldwide including in the Russian Federation. 3. Respondent registered the <radisson-hotels.host> domain name on September 23, 2022. 4. Respondent has used the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and to send fraudulent emails. 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 The first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. Complainant submits that it has rights in the RADISSON mark based upon registration of the mark with the EUIPO (e.g., Reg. No. 51,672, registered April 27, 1999) and other trademark agencies worldwide. See Compl. Ex. C. Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is considered a valid showing of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) (“Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world.”). Since Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the RADISSON mark with the EUIPO and other trademark agencies, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s RADISSON mark. Complainant contends that Respondent’s <radisson-hotels.host> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RADISSON mark. The addition of a hyphen, generic term, and gTLD to a mark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) (“Respondent’s <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ANT FINANCIAL mark. It incorporates the mark entirely. It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms “investor relations,” and the “.com” gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”). The disputed domain name incorporates the RADISSON mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic word “hotels” and the gTLD “.host”. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the RADISSON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations: (a) Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s RADISSON mark and to use it in its domain name adding only the generic word “hotels” to the mark; (b) Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 23, 2022; (c) Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and to send fraudulent emails; (d) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant; (e) Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <radisson-hotels.host> domain name because Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s RADISSON mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Guardair Corporation v. Pablo Palermo, FA1407001571060 (Forum Aug. 28, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <guardair.com> domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information lists “Pablo Palermo” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Dmitriy Mess.” See Registrar Verification Email. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); (f) Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the <radisson-hotels.host> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and to send fraudulent emails. Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Here, Complainant has provided screenshots of the fraudulent emails sent by Respondent. See Compl. Ex. H. Therefore, as the Panel agrees, it finds Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish. Registration and Use in Bad Faith It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and has been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons. First, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <radisson-hotels.host> domain name in bad faith because Respondent passes itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. jaskima smith, FA 1750160 (Forum Oct. 26, 2017) (finding the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith to pass off as the complainant in an attempt to gain personal information from users who mistakenly access the website); see also Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use). The Panel recalls the screenshots produced by Complainant showing Respondent impersonating Complainant in fraudulent emails. See Compl. Ex. H. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent has acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Secondly, Complainant submits that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the RADISSON mark. Actual knowledge can adequately demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Forum May 31, 2002) (“Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently displayed. Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks. The Panel finds that this conduct is that which is prohibited by Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”); see also Bluegreen Corp. v. eGo, FA 128793 (Forum Dec. 16, 2002) (finding bad faith where the method by which the respondent acquired the disputed domain names indicated that the respondent was well aware that the domain names incorporated marks in which the complainant had rights). To support this submission, Complainant points to the fame of the RADISSON mark which it has used for decades, and to Respondent impersonating Complainant. See Compl. Pgs. 8-9. As such, as the Panel finds Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its mark, this supports a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) which the Panel now makes. Thirdly, in addition and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name using the famous RADISSON mark and in view of the conduct that Respondent has engaged in when using the domain name, Respondent registered and used it in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish. 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 <radisson-hotels.host> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown QC Panelist Dated: November 16, 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.