MHG IP HOLDING (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. v. malao ban
Claim Number: FA2206002000365
Complainant is MHG IP HOLDING (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. ("Complainant"), represented by Michelle Ray-Jones of Tilleke & Gibbins International Ltd., Thailand. Respondent is malao ban ("Respondent"), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <phuketanantara.com>, registered with Dynadot, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 15, 2022; the Forum received payment on June 15, 2022.
On June 16, 2022, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <phuketanantara.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, 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 June 17, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 7, 2022 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@phuketanantara.com. Also on June 17, 2022, 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 July 12, 2022, 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 its parent company Minor International Public Company Limited) owns and uses ANANTARA and related marks in connection with hotel, real estate, and spa services offered all over the world. The first Anantara hotel opened in Thailand in 2001, and the brand has rapidly expanded to many countries. Several of Complainant's properties are located in Phuket, Thailand, including the Anantara Layan Phuket Resort, the Layan Residences by Anantara, the Anantara Mai Khao Phuket Villas, and the Anantara Vacation Club Mai Khao Phuket. Complainant owns Thai and international trademark registrations for ANANTARA in standard character form and otherwise.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <phuketanantara.com> in September 2021. The domain name currently redirects to a Chinese-language website composed of sexually explicit images and links to other sites, most of which appear to contain similar content. Complainant describes the content of the website as pornographic and states that nothing on it relates to Phuket, Thailand, nor to ANANTARA. Complainant states further that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no affiliation or relationship with Complainant, and is not licensed to use Complainant's marks.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <phuketanantara.com> is confusingly similar to its ANANTARA mark; 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 <phuketanantara.com> incorporates Complainant's registered ANANTARA trademark, adding the geographic term "Phuket" 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., Marriott International, Inc. & Marriott Worldwide Corp. v. Wang Jing, FA 1860320 (Forum Oct. 17, 2019) (finding <jwmarriottphuket.com> confusingly similar to JW MARRIOTT); Minor International PCL. v. Hassan Sham, FA 1818486 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) (finding <anantara-kihavah.com> confusingly similar to ANANTARA). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be 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 for a sexually explicit commercial website with no apparent connection to the mark, presumably using the mark for the sole purpose of attracting traffic to the website. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Nasdaq, Inc. v. Na Me, FA 1996236 (Forum June 13, 2022) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests in similar circumstances); Marriott International, Inc. & Marriott Worldwide Corp. v. Wang Jing, supra (same).
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)(iv) of the Policy, 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 registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark and is using it to display or promote sexually explicit content. The Panel infers from the circumstances that Respondent is seeking to profit by diverting Internet users searching for Complainant or its mark. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Nasdaq, Inc. v. Na Me, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); Marriott International, Inc. & Marriott Worldwide Corp. v. Wang Jing, supra (same). 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 <phuketanantara.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: July 12, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page