Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Hasan Iqbal
Claim Number: FA2205001997822
Complainant is Choice Hotels International, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Diana S. Bae of ArentFox Schiff LLP, US. Respondent is Hasan Iqbal (“Respondent”), BD.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <choiceadvantage.ltd>, registered with Porkbun LLC.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 24, 2022; the Forum received payment on May 24, 2022.
On May 25, 2022, Porkbun LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <choiceadvantage.ltd> domain name is registered with Porkbun LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Porkbun LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Porkbun 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 May 26, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 15, 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@choiceadvantage.ltd. Also on May 26, 2022, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 22, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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
i) Complainant is a well-known lodging franchisor. Complainant has rights in the CHOICEADVANTAGE mark through its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)(e.g., Reg. No. 3,111,199, registered July 4, 2006). The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it fully incorporates Complainant’s CHOICEADVANTAGE mark and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “ltd” to form the disputed domain name.
ii) Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its CHOICEADVANTAGE mark in the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Respondent uses the disputed domain name in connection with a website that is impersonating Complainant to presumably effectuate a phishing scheme.
iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant. Additionally, Respondent uses the disputed domain name in a potential phishing scheme. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHOICEADVANTAGE mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a response in this proceeding.
1. The disputed domain name was registered on August 23, 2021.
2. Complainant has established rights in the CHOICEADVANTAGE mark through its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,111,199, registered July 4, 2006).
3. The disputed domain name’s resolving website prominently displays Complainant’s CHOICEADVANTAGE mark and logo throughout the website, as well as descriptions and images impersonating Complainant.
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”).
Complainant claims rights in the CHOICEADVANTAGE mark through its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,111,199, registered July 4, 2006). Registration with multiple trademark agencies is generally sufficient in demonstrating rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Muhammad Shahzad, FA 1787738 (Forum June 19, 2018) (“Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to demonstrate rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has rights in the CHOICEADVANTAGE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <choiceadvantage.ltd> is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHOICEADVANTAGE mark. The disputed domain name fully incorporates Complainant’s CHOICEADVANTAGE mark and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “ltd” to form the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
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”).
Complainant contends Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; Complainant’s prior rights in the mark precede Respondent’s registration; and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the CHOICEADVANTAGE mark. Information on the record that reveals that a registrant’s name is materially different from the disputed domain name may be used to determine that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name is shielded by a privacy service. However, the registrar revealed the registrant for the disputed domain name as “Hasan Iqbal.” There is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the CHOICEADVANTAGE mark. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Use of a disputed domain’s resolving website to pass off as Complainant is generally not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (“Because [the] respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the <mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Complainant has provided screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving website. The website prominently displays Complainant’s CHOICEADVANTAGE mark and logo throughout the website, as well as descriptions and images impersonating Complainant. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate non-commercial or fair use.
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. 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 has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant for commercial gain in bad faith. Past panels have found that use of a disputed domain name’s resolving website to pass off as the complainant demonstrates a respondents bad faith registration and use under 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). Respondent uses the disputed domain name’s resolving website to impersonate Complainant through displaying Complainant’s logo and mark. The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in a bad faith attempt to perpetuate a phishing scheme. Generally using a disputed domain name to fraudulently phish for information is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (FORUM Feb. 2, 2018) (“[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). The Panel references the screenshots of website associated with the disputed domain name. The resolving webpage features a login page and a “Get Help” button which may be used to gather user information. The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith in order to facilitate a phishing scheme under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHOICEADVANTAGE mark. A respondent’s use of a disputed domain name’s resolving page that impersonates a complainant demonstrates a respondent’s actual knowledge and bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the link between the complainant’s mark and the content advertised on the respondent’s website was obvious, the respondent “must have known about the Complainant’s mark when it registered the subject domain name”). Respondent uses the entirety of Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name and displays Complainant’s mark and logo throughout the domain name’s resolving website. The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant’s mark and the manner of use of the disputed domain name that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHOICEADVANTAGE mark before registering the disputed domain name, which supports a finding of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <choiceadvantage.ltd> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: June 27, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page