Seriesbymarriott.com

The timeline behind seriesbymarriott.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. Registration Private Claim Number: FA2506002163099 PARTIES Complainant is Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Worldwide Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Crystal Genteman of Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Registration Private ("Respondent"), Arizona, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <seriesbymarriott.com>, registered with Dynadot Inc. 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 June 27, 2025; Forum received payment on June 27, 2025. On June 29, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <seriesbymarriott.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot Inc 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 July 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 23, 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@seriesbymarriott.com. Also on July 3, 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 24, 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS In the present proceeding, there are two complainants: Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Worldwide Corporation. Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs 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 3(a) of the Rules provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." Panels have previously interpreted Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to permit multiple complainants to proceed as one party where a sufficient connection between them can be demonstrated. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int'l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated: It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership, or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity. Similarly, in Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated two complainants as a single entity because both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants based on a license agreement between the parties regarding the TOUGHLOVE mark. But see AmeriSource Corp. v. Park, FA 99134 (Forum Nov. 5, 2001) ("This Panel finds it difficult to hold that a domain name that may belong to AmerisourceBergen Corporation (i.e., the subject Domain Names) should belong to AmeriSource Corporation because they are affiliated companies."). Complainant asserts that Marriott Worldwide Corporation is a subsidiary of Marriott International, Inc., and is the owner of registrations for the MARRIOTT and SERIES BY MARRIOTT marks in the United Kingdom, Mexico, and other countries. Marriott International, Inc. is the owner of registrations and applications for the MARRIOTT and SERIES BY MARRIOTT marks in the United States. The Panel finds this evidence sufficient to establish a nexus or link between Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Worldwide Corporation. Accordingly, the Panel treats both entities as a single entity for the purposes of this proceeding. Hereinafter, the two complainants will be collectively referred to as "Complainant" in this decision. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant i) Complainant's origins date back to 1927 and it quickly expanded to become one of the world's largest and most recognized providers of hotel, restaurant, and hospitality services in the United States and numerous other countries. In May 2025, Complainant announced the global launch of its 37th brand, SERIES BY MARRIOTT, a new collection brand targeting the midscale and upscale lodging segments, which aims to bring together well-established, regionally developed brands and hotels that emphasize consistent quality and service. Complainant owns trademark registrations for the MARRIOTT marks, inter alia, based on registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 899,900, registered September 29, 1970). Complainant also holds rights in the SERIES BY MARRIOTT mark through registration with IP Australia (e.g., Reg. No. 2505844, registered December 11, 2024). As a result of extensive use, promotion, and advertisement, the MARRIOTT and SERIES BY MARRIOTT marks have become well known to consumers. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks because it fully incorporates both the MARRIOTT and SERIES BY MARRIOTT marks with only the omission of spaces and the addition of a gTLD. ii) Respondent has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has neither authorized nor licensed Respondent to use the MARRIOTT and SERIES BY MARRIOTT marks. Furthermore, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any active website. Respondent made a general offer to sell the disputed domain name for $2,850. Complainant's representative initiated a purchase through the Daaz platform, and although the payment was accepted and the transfer process began, Respondent failed to proceed despite repeated follow-ups, resulting in cancellation of the transaction. Respondent subsequently increased the asking price to $48,889. iii) Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith to exploit the goodwill associated with Complainant's MARRIOTT marks. The domain name fully incorporates Complainant's MARRIOTT and SERIES BY MARRIOTT marks, which constitutes opportunistic bad faith. Although the registration date of December 9, 2024 precedes Complainant's first registration for the SERIES BY MARRIOTT mark, it coincides with the filing date of Complainant's USPTO application. The likelihood of consumer confusion, coupled with Respondent's current offer to sell the domain at a price far exceeding out-of-pocket costs, further supports a finding of bad faith. The circumstances indicate that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual or at least constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on December 9, 2024. 2. Complainant has established rights in the MARRIOTT marks, inter alia, based on registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 899,900, registered September 29, 1970). 3. Complainant also holds rights in the SERIES BY MARRIOTT mark through registration with IP Australia (e.g., Reg. No. 2505844, registered December 11, 2024). 4. The disputed domain name was registered by Respondent on December 9, 2024, which is before Complainant received its first registration for the SERIES BY MARRIOTT mark, but which is the same date that Complainant submitted an application to the USPTO for the SERIES BY MARRIOTT mark. 5. Respondent made a general offer to sell the disputed domain name for $2,850. Complainant's representative initiated a purchase through the Daaz platform, and although the payment was accepted and the transfer process began, Respondent failed to proceed despite repeated follow-ups, resulting in cancellation of the transaction. Respondent subsequently increased the asking price to $48,889. 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 asserts rights in the MARRIOTT marks, inter alia, based on registration with USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 899,900, registered September 29, 1970), and in the SERIES BY MARRIOTT mark through registration with IP Australia (e.g., Reg. No. 2505844, registered December 11, 2024). Registration of a mark with national trademark authorities is considered valid evidence of rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). As Complainant has submitted proof of the USPTO and IP Australia registrations for the MARRIOTT and SERIES BY MARRIOTT marks, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <seriesbymarriott.com>, is confusingly similar to its MARRIOTT and SERIES BY MARRIOTT marks because it fully incorporates both the MARRIOTT and SERIES BY MARRIOTT marks with only the omission of spaces and the addition of a gTLD. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name simply combines Complainant's two registered marks with the omission of spaces, and thus finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks under 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 unmasked WHOIS data lists "Registration Private" 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 contends that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent made a general offer to sell the disputed domain name for $2,850, which was subsequently increased to $48,889 during Complainant's attempt to complete the purchase. The Panel considers that attempting to sell a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark for an amount exceeding out-of-pocket expenses does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Securian Financial Group, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 2075487 (Forum Jan. 10, 2024) ("The Panel notes that the use of the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant's well-known mark to sell it for the amount of out-of-pocket expense does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate non-commercial or fair use."). The Panel considers that both the initial amount of $2,850 and the subsequently increased amount of $48,889 exceed Respondent's out-of-pocket expenses. Furthermore, the Panel notes that Respondent engaged in bad faith conduct, as evidenced by the fact that Complainant's representative initiated a purchase through the Daaz platform, the payment was accepted, and the transfer process commenced, yet Respondent failed to complete the transaction despite repeated follow-ups, resulting in its cancellation. Respondent then raised the asking price to $48,889. In light of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In the absence of any response or other effort by Respondent to rebut this prima facie case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant also contends that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by offering it for sale at an amount exceeding typical out-of-pocket costs. A general offer for sale can constitute evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Arris Enterprises LLC v. Milen Radumilo, FA 2072536 (Forum Dec. 28, 2023) ("Respondent is offering to sell the disputed domain name, and a general offer for sale may be sufficient to establish registration and use in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Further, the offer is for a price far in excess of the out-of-pocket registration fee. An offer to sell a disputed domain name with an inflated price may act as further evidence of bad faith registration and use."); see also Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Wang Liqun, FA 1625332 (Forum July 17, 2015) ("A respondent's general offer to sell a disputed domain name for an excess of out-of-pocket costs is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)."). Complainant has submitted a screenshot showing that the disputed domain name was offered for sale at the price of $2,850, a figure that far exceeds standard out-of-pocket registration expenses. The Panel notes that Respondent engaged in bad faith conduct, as evidenced by the fact that Complainant's representative initiated a purchase through the Daaz platform, the payment was accepted, and the transfer process commenced, yet Respondent failed to complete the transaction despite repeated follow-ups, resulting in its cancellation. Respondent then raised the asking price to $48,889. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name resolved to an inactive webpage. The Panel observes that the passive holding of a domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith use under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that, in considering whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration, satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must examine all the circumstances of the respondent's behavior, and a remedy can be obtained only if those circumstances demonstrate that the respondent's passive holding amounts to bad faith). In this case, the Panel has considered the following specific circumstances: i) Complainant has attained significant consumer recognition. Founded in 1927, Complainant rapidly grew into one of the world's leading providers of hotel, restaurant, and hospitality services, operating, franchising, and licensing over 9,500 properties under more than 35 brands in approximately 144 countries and territories. Its excellence has been acknowledged through numerous awards, including 26 consecutive years on the Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For list, consistent placement on Fortune's World's Most Admired Companies list, high guest satisfaction ratings in J.D. Power rankings, and recognition for its customer loyalty programs such as Program of the Year at the Freddie Awards for 15 straight years. Complainant has also made substantial investments, spending tens of millions of dollars annually to promote its services under the MARRIOTT marks. ii) The disputed domain name was registered by Respondent on December 9, 2024, which is the same date that Complainant submitted its USPTO application for the SERIES BY MARRIOTT mark. Although this date precedes the first formal registration of the mark, it does not coincide accidentally, given the timing. iii) Respondent has failed to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name. In view of the above, the Panel concludes that Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name, in the absence of any legitimate use or plausible explanation, constitutes bad faith use under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant further contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith with knowledge of Complainant's MARRIOTT and SERIES BY MARRIOTT marks. While constructive knowledge alone may not suffice to establish bad faith, the global notoriety of a mark may demonstrate actual knowledge at the time of registration and thereby support a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel infers, based on the fame of Complainant's marks and Respondent's use of the disputed domain name that combines Complainant's two registered marks, that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MARRIOTT and SERIES BY MARRIOTT marks, supporting a finding of bad faith registration 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 <seriesbymarriott.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: July 25, 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.