Fairfieldby-marriott.com

The timeline behind fairfieldby-marriott.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 Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Worldwide Corporation v. amit kumar Claim Number: FA2506002159587 PARTIES Complainant is Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Worldwide Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Jeanette Eriksson of FairWinds Partners LLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is amit kumar ("Respondent"), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <fairfieldby-marriott.com>, registered with INWX GmbH. 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 Forum electronically on June 6, 2025; Forum received payment on June 6, 2025. On June 16, 2025, INWX GmbH confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <fairfieldby-marriott.com> domain name is registered with INWX GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. INWX GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the INWX GmbH 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 June 19, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 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@fairfieldby-marriott.com. Also on June 19, 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 July 14, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant Marriott International, Inc. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPAINANTS Complainants request that this Panel consolidate complaints from two separate Complainants because of their close business relationship, (as the first named Complainant is the parent of the second named Complainant), they share legal interests and representation and because of the unified remedy sought will ensure procedural efficiency and avoid duplicative filings. In support of their submissions Complainant cite the decision in Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Worldwide Corporation v. huang fei hong / Chicago, FA2141786 (Forum Mar 20, 2025) ("There are two Complainants in this matter: Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Worldwide Corporation. Marriott International, Inc. is the parent corporation of Marriott Worldwide Corporation. The Panel therefore finds that there is a sufficient link between the named Complainants, and elects to treat them as one Complainant."). The record shows that Complainants are in a parent subsidiary relationship. They each have rights in the FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT service marks registered in different jurisdictions as shown below. This Panel agrees that permitting this Complaint to proceed with two Complainants which are members of the same group of companies, share legal interests, and request a unified remedy, will ensure procedural efficiency and avoid duplicative filings as argued by the Complainants. In these circumstances this Panel permits this Complaint to proceed with the two Complainants. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainants claim rights in the FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT mark established by their ownership of the portfolios of service mark registrations described below and extensive use of the mark in their hotel business. Complainants submit that they operate hotel and resort chains across the world with over 9,100 properties in total across 142 countries and territories worldwide. They operate using over 30 hotel brands, including MARRIOTT, JW MARRIOTT, COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT, FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT, RESIDENCE INN BY MARRIOTT, SPRINGHILL SUITES BY MARRIOTT, TOWNEPLACE SUITES BY MARRIOTT, DELTA HOTELS BY MARRIOTT, AC HOTELS BY MARRIOTT and PROTEA HOTELS BY MARRIOTT. Other famous brands owned by Complainants include THE RITZ-CARLTON and RENAISSANCE HOTELS. Specifically, and relevantly Complainants submit that they opened their first FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT branded hotel in Atlanta, Georgia in 1987 and assert that the chain has since grown to more than 1200 properties globally. Complainants firstly allege that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT mark in which they have rights, arguing that the second level of the disputed domain name <fairfieldby-marriott.com> is an identical copy of Complainants' FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT Mark, merely adding a hyphen and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com> Furthermore Complainants submit that it been held in decisions too numerous to mention, that adding a hyphen to a domain name that contains a complainant's trademark in its entirety runs afoul of the plain language of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), citing for example the decision in SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks v. Jon Edelman / Ideas 4 Now, FA2141540 (Forum, Mar 19, 2025) ("The Panel finds Respondent's <prize-picks.com> domain name to be virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's PRIZEPICKS mark, only differing by the insertion of the hyphen, which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element."). Additionally it is argued that the gTLD extension <.com> does nothing to alleviate confusion between the FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT mark, citing as an example the decision in Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, WIPO Case D2000-0429 (finding that the Top Level Domain name such as <.net> or <.com> does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar). Complainants next allege that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that · Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by Complainant to use the FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT mark; · Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has no trademark rights in the FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT name; · Respondent does not operate a legitimate business under the FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT name or the disputed domain name; · the screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint shows that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant's hotel in Goa, India, including by use of Complainant's logo and address, and a link to a misleading WhatsApp contact on the resolving website; · Respondent's website lacks any disclaimer and falsely claims copyright as "© 2025 Fairfield By Marriott"; · Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is intended to mislead users into believing they are interacting with Complainant, for commercial gain or to harvest personal information; · panels established under the Policy have categorically held that the use of a domain name either to mislead consumers who are searching for a particular business, or to conduct illegal activity (e.g., phishing, impersonation/passing off), can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent and is not a bona fide use of a domain name at issue, citing the recent case Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Worldwide Corporation v. huang fei hong / chicago, FA2141786 (Forum, March 20, 2025) in which the domain name <marriottbonvoy.services> resolved to a website that impersonated the complainant and harvested personal information. The Panel concluded: "Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant and solicit users' personal information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)." Complainant further refers to a screen capture of the MX records for the disputed domain name which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint. Complainant submits that the screen capture shows that the disputed domain name has been configured to send and receive email messages, which infers intent to use the disputed domain name for phishing or impersonation via email. Complainant contends that such use of the disputed domain name does not create rights or legitimate interests for Respondent. Complainant thirdly alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing that Complainants' rights and extensive use of the FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT Marks long predate the creation date of the disputed domain name on on March 15, 2025. Furthermore, it is submitted that given the global reputation and use of Complainants' FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT Marks and Respondent's intentional impersonation thereof as shown in the exhibited screen capture, it is entirely inconceivable that Respondent was not aware of the existence of Complainants' FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT Marks at the time it registered the disputed domain name. Complainant further refers to a screen capture which exhibited in an annex to the Complaint which Complainant illustrates that Respondent has created a WhatsApp profile impersonating Complainant which is accessible through a link on the homepage of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. It is further alleged that the content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves displays the address of Complainants' FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT property in Anjuna, Goa, India but with a different phone number, and "Copyright © 2025 Fairfield By Marriott", and Complainant argues that Respondent's impersonation of the Complainant's hotel and use of the Complainant's branding demonstrates deliberate use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The first named Complainant is the parent company of the second named Complainant. Complainants are proprietors of hotel and resort chains in a parent-subsidiary relationship, and are the owners of the FAIRFIELD, FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT AND MARRIOTT trademarks (collectively referred to in the Complaint as the "FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT Marks") for which they hold a portfolio of trademark and service mark registrations including the following owned by the First Named Complainant: · United States registered trademark FAIRFIELD, registration number 6,562,886, registered on the Principal Register on November 16, 2021 for services in international class 43; · United States registered trademark FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT (stylized) registered on the Principal Register on September 4, 2018 for services in international class 43; · United States registered trademark FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT registered on the Principal Register on March 5, 2019 for services in international class 43. The Second Named Complainant also holds a portfolio of registered service marks that relevantly includes: · Indian registered trademark FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT (stylized logo) registration number 3712980 registered on December 27, 2017 for services in class 43. Complainants have an established Internet presence and maintain a website at <www.fairfield.marriott.com>. The disputed domain name was registered on March 15, 2025, and resolves to a website that purports to offer hotel and resort services impersonating Complainant. 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 the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this Complaint. 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 has provided uncontested evidence that it has rights in the FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT mark established by its ownership of the service mark registrations described above and has produced evidence of its use of the mark on its website at <www.fairfieldbymarriott.com>. The disputed domain name <fairfieldby-marriott.com> consists of Complainant's FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT mark in its entirety albeit with the insertion of the hyphen before the "marriott" element, together with the gTLD extension <.com>. It is well established that it is sufficient for a complainant to show that the mark relied upon is contained in its entirety in the domain name at issue to succeed in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). As argued by Complainant the insertion of the hyphen is insufficient to distinguish the almost identical domain name from Complainant's mark. In the circumstances of this case, the gTLD extension would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for an Internet domain name and therefore does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's mark. This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is almost identical and confusingly similar to the FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT 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 Complainant has made out an uncontested prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above. The evidence shows that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainants and to take unlawful advantage of their goodwill in the FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT mark to attract and divert Internet traffic, which cannot create rights or legitimate interests for Respondent. 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 name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainants' registered service mark FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT mark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name aside from the gTLD extension. Complainants' registered service mark rights in the mark long predate the registration of the disputed domain name, and Complainants' uncontested evidence is that the first FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT branded hotel was opened in Atlanta, Georgia in 1987, whereas the disputed domain name was not registered until March 15, 2025. It is improbable that the registrant of the disputed domain name was unaware of Complainants' mark when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered because Complainants' FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT is a very distinctive combination of elements, and the disputed domain name is almost identical to Complainants' mark. Furthermore, Complainants have an established Internet presence maintaining a website at <www.fairfield.marriott.com>. There appears to be no plausible reason for registering the disputed domain name other than to create an association with Complainant and its FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT mark. On the balance of probabilities, therefore, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name was in fact chosen and registered with Complainants' mark in mind with the intention of taking predatory advantage of Complainants' rights and goodwill in the FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT mark. The uncontested evidence in the form of the screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves illustrates that Respondent is purporting to impersonate Complainant which supports this finding of registration in bad faith and furthermore supports Complainants' submission that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. The exhibited screen captures show that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainants' hotel in Goa, India, including by misleading use of Complainant's logo, address, and WhatsApp profile which can be accessed from the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Such use of Complainants' service mark within the disputed domain name as the address of the resolving website is on the balance of probabilities intentionally intended to attract and confuse Internet users and cause them to divert their Internet traffic intended for Complainant and misdirect it to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainants' mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site, which constitutes bad faith for the purposes of the Policy. Furthermore, the evidence adduced by Complainant showing that Respondent has created MX records for the disputed domain name to allow the creation of accounts to send and receive email messages is a cause of concern that the disputed domain name may be used for the purposes of phishing. As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has 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 <fairfieldby-marriott.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant Marriott International, Inc. ___________________________________________ James Bridgeman SC Panelist Dated: July 16, 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.