Expediacruisesinc.com

The timeline behind expediacruisesinc.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 Expedia, Inc. v. Saurabh Shukla Claim Number: FA2502002140135 PARTIES Complainant is Expedia, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David M. Kelly of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Saurabh Shukla ("Respondent"), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <expediacruisesinc.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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 13, 2025; Forum received payment on February 13, 2025. On February 14, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <expediacruisesinc.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 February 18, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 10, 2025 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@expediacruisesinc.com. Also on February 18, 2025, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 11, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as 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. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant i) Complainant operates one of the world's largest full-service online travel agencies through its EXPEDIA-branded websites. Complainant has rights in the "EXPEDIA" and "EXPEDIA formative marks based upon numerous trademark registrations around the world including registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,220,719 registered January 26, 1999). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's EXPEDIA mark because it contains Complainant's mark in its entirety adding non-distinguishing elements, namely, "cruises" and "inc." ii) Respondent has no legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the EXPEDIA marks. 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, the disputed domain name is used to pass itself off as Complainant. iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to intentionally attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's EXPEDIA mark. Respondent disrupts Complainant's business by (a) using the disputed domain name to advertise and/or offer directly competing travel services, (b) competing with Complainant for Internet traffic, and (c) by interfering with Complainant's ability to control use of its famous and federally registered EXPEDIA mark. Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name for passing off activities constitute an independent ground of bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith with knowledge of Complainant's rights in its EXPEDIA mark given the international fame of Complainant's mark. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1.The disputed domain name was registered on November 17, 2024. 2. Complainant has established rights in the "EXPEDIA" and "EXPEDIA CRUISES" marks based on numerous trademark registrations around the world, including registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,220,719 registered January 26, 1999; Reg. No. 5,913,742 registered November 19, 2019). 3. Respondent displays Complainant's "EXPEDIA CRUISES" mark on its website, which offers cruise travel services, attempting to mislead users into believing that the website is operated by Complainant or is affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant. 4. The website associated with the disputed domain name features a menu bar comprising the following sections: "Cruises," "Vacations," "Tours," "About Cruising," "Deals," and "Contact Us." It uses Complainant's mark "EXPEDIA CRUISES" in the statements "At Expedia Cruises, we are navigators of spectacular vacation experiences. As part of the number one brand in travel, this is our promise to you" and "Expedia Extras." DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 claims rights in the EXPEDIA and "EXPEDIA CRUISES" marks based on numerous trademark registrations around the world, including registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,220,719 registered on January 26, 1999; Reg. No. 5,913,742 registered on November 19, 2019). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is a valid demonstration of rights in a mark. Since Complainant provides evidence of the registration of the EXPEDIA and "EXPEDIA CRUISES" marks with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <expediacruisesinc.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's EXPEDIA mark because it contains Complainant's mark in its entirety. The additional non-distinctive elements, i.e., "cruises" and "inc.," do not negate the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that additional terms related to a complainant's business can heighten the likelihood of confusing similarity between the domain name and the mark. See Expedia v. Sameh Elsayed, FA 1941132 (Forum May 10, 2021) ("The disputed domain name <expedia-traveleg.com> incorporates Complainant's registered EXPEDIA trademark, adding a hyphen, the generic term 'travel,' the geographic abbreviation 'eg,' and the '.com' top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's EXPEDIA and "EXPEDIA CRUISES" marks per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests 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 Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the WHOIS data lists "Saurabh Shukla" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant. The Panel observes that such impersonation does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant's mark and various photographs related to the complainant's business); see also Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding that no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use existed where the respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant's MERRELL mark, which were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization). Complainant highlights that Respondent uses Complainant's "EXPEDIA CRUISES" mark on its website, which offers cruise travel services, misleading users into believing that the website is operated by Complainant or is affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant. The Panel notes that the website associated with the disputed domain name prominently displays Complainant's "EXPEDIA CRUISES" mark as its title. The website associated with the disputed domain name features a menu bar comprising the following sections: "Cruises," "Vacations," "Tours," "About Cruising," "Deals," and "Contact Us." It uses Complainant's mark "EXPEDIA CRUISES" in the statements "At Expedia Cruises, we are navigators of spectacular vacation experiences. As part of the number one brand in travel, this is our promise to you" and "Expedia Extras." The Panel finds that the resolving website of the disputed domain name impersonates Complainant and offers competing services, and thus Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case based on the considerations above. All of these matters support the establishment of a prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted to refute the prima facie case by any other means, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent's use and registration of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith because the disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying the EXPEDIA mark in a manner that impersonates Complainant and mimics the appearance of a legitimate website. The Panel finds that such impersonation, combined with the sale of competing products, can evidence bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (b)(iv). See Ontel Products Corporation v. waweru njoroge, FA 1762229 (Forum Dec. 22, 2017) ("Respondent's primary offering seems to be counterfeits of Complainant's toy car products. Respondent's use of the <magictrackscars.com> domain name is thus disruptive to Complainant's business per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)"); see also Russell & Bromley Limited v. Li Wei Wei, FA 1752021 (Forum Nov. 17, 2017) (finding that the respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith because it used the name to pass off as the complainant and to offer for sale competitive, counterfeit goods). The Panel notes that Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name's website, which prominently displays Complainant's EXPEDIA and EXPEDIA CRUISES marks as its title. The website associated with the disputed domain name features a menu bar comprising the following sections: "Cruises," "Vacations," "Tours," "About Cruising," "Deals," and "Contact Us." It uses Complainant's mark "EXPEDIA CRUISES" in the statements "At Expedia Cruises, we are navigators of spectacular vacation experiences. As part of the number one brand in travel, this is our promise to you" and "Expedia Extras." The Panel finds that such use of the disputed domain name falsely suggests that the website is either operated by Complainant or affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). Complainant further contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith with full awareness of Complainant's rights in its EXPEDIA mark, given Complainant's global reputation, Respondent's selection and registration of the disputed domain name containing Complainant's EXPEDIA mark in its entirety, and Respondent's passing off activities. The Panel recognizes that, as a result of the long-standing commercial success of the EXPEDIA mark and Complainant's extensive use, promotion, and registration of the EXPEDIA mark over many years, the EXPEDIA mark has long been famous worldwide and is entitled to the broadest scope of protection. In prior UDRP decisions, Complainant's EXPEDIA mark has been recognized as a well-known trademark. The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant's mark and the manner in which the disputed domain name is used, that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the EXPEDIA mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under 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 <expediacruisesinc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: March 12, 2025 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.