priceline.com LLC v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD
Claim Number: FA1910001868073
Complainant is priceline.com LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Jamie E. Sternberg of Saunders & Silverstein LLP, Connecticut, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD ("Respondent"), Pakistan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <pricelinecarrental.com>, registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited; Media Elite Holdings Limited ("Media Elite").
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 22, 2019; the Forum received payment on October 22, 2019.
On October 24, 2019, Media Elite confirmed by email to the Forum that the <pricelinecarrental.com> domain name is registered with Media Elite and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Media Elite has verified that Respondent is bound by the Media Elite Limited 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 28, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 18, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@pricelinecarrental.com. Also on October 28, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 November 20, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant (together with a predecessor in interest) has offered Internet-based travel services under the PRICELINE marks since 1998. These services include reservations for airline tickets, hotel rooms, rental cars, vacation packages, and other travel and transportation services. Complainant states that its website was one of the world's top ten most visited e-commerce sites as early as the first month in which it was launched. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for PRICELINE and PRICELINE.COM in the United States and worldwide. Complainant asserts that its marks have become famous as a result of longstanding and extensive use and promotion.
Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name <pricelinecarrental.com>. The domain name was created in 2005. Complainant provided copies of whois registration records from March 2018, October 2018, and October 2019. The March 2018 record lists a privacy registration service in the Bahamas as the nominal registrant, while the two more recent records identify the registrant as Respondent, a privacy registration service in Panama. Complainant states that is unaware of any relationship between it and Respondent that would give rise to any license, permission, or authorization by which Respondent could own or use the disputed domain name, and that it does not believe Respondent is commonly known by the domain name. The domain name redirects variously to other commercial websites, including those of competitors of Complainant, and to parked pages containing pay-per-click links to websites of Complainant's competitors.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <pricelinecarrental.com> is confusingly similar to its PRICELINE and PRICELINE.COM marks; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <pricelinecarrental.com> incorporates Complainant's registered PRICELINE trademark, adding the generic term "car rental" (without the space) and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Priceline.com LLC v. Jason Stroppel, FA 1733802 (Forum July 3, 2017) (finding <pricelineautomotive.com> confusingly similar to PRICELINE); Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Dharshinee Naidu, FA 1831809 (Forum Apr. 5, 2019) (finding <stanfordcarrental.com> confusingly similar to STANFORD); Brink's Network Inc. v. Brinks Car Rental / Asheley Alexander Grant, FA 1341093 (Forum Sept. 23, 2010) (finding <brinkscarrental.com> confusingly similar to BRINK'S). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used to redirect Internet users to other commercial websites, including those of competitors of Complainant, and to parked pages containing pay-per-click links to websites of Complainant's competitors. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., LF, LLC v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 1810280 (Forum Oct. 31, 2018) (finding lack of rights or interests based upon redirection to other websites, including that of a direct competitor of complainant); Skechers U.S.A., Inc. & Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Lin Yanxiao, FA 1674758 (Forum June 10, 2016) (finding lack of rights or interests based upon redirection to various commercial websites, presumably generating referral fees).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent used multiple privacy registration services to register and maintain a domain name incorporating Complainant's famous mark and a generic term related to its services, and has used the domain name to generate revenue by redirecting or linking to Complainant's competitors and other commercial websites. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., LF, LLC v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, supra (finding bad faith where domain name incorporating well-known mark was used to redirect users to other websites, including that of a competitor); Priceline.com, Inc. v. Private Registration / WhoisGuardService.com, FA 1686935 (Forum Sept. 19, 2016) (finding bad faith where domain name incorporating PRICELINE mark was registered using a privacy service and was used to direct visitors to complainant's competitors). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <pricelinecarrental.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: November 29, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page