Travelocity.com LP v. Nathalie Cannon a/k/a Madison Vang a/k/a Reece Andrews a/k/a Jishin Pacheco a/k/a Ian Hewitt a/k/a Brown French a/k/a Sabina Cummings a/k/a Melissa Colon a/k/a Kamryn Dean a/k/a Ronald Hahn a/k/a Hailey Mills a/k/a Anissa Hester a/k/a Caden Kidd a/k/a Estelle Jackson a/k/a Sari Hamilton
Claim Number: FA1004001318890
Complainant is Travelocity.com LP (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk,
Inc.,
REGISTRAR
The domain names at issue are <rtravelocity.com>, <trabvelocity.com>, <travbelocity.com>, <traveklocity.com>, <travelkocity.com>, <travelocithy.com>, <travelociuty.com>, <travelociyty.com>, <travelocxity.com>, <traveloxcity.com>, <travelpocity.com>, <travrelocity.com>, <travwelocity.com>, <trsavelocity.com> and <ytravelocity.com>, registered with Enom, Inc.
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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On April 19, 2010, the Forum served
the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint,
setting a deadline of May 10, 2010 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@rtravelocity.com,
postmaster@trabvelocity.com, postmaster@travbelocity.com, postmaster@traveklocity.com,
postmaster@travelkocity.com, postmaster@travelocithy.com, postmaster@travelociuty.com,
postmaster@travelociyty.com, postmaster@travelocxity.com, postmaster@traveloxcity.com,
postmaster@travelpocity.com, postmaster@travrelocity.com, postmaster@travwelocity.com,
postmaster@trsavelocity.com and postmaster@ytravelocity.com. Also on
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of a Written Notice, as defined in Rule 1. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <rtravelocity.com>, <trabvelocity.com>, <travbelocity.com>, <traveklocity.com>, <travelkocity.com>, <travelocithy.com>, <travelociuty.com>, <travelociyty.com>, <travelocxity.com>, <traveloxcity.com>, <travelpocity.com>, <travrelocity.com>, <travwelocity.com>, <trsavelocity.com> and <ytravelocity.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRAVELOCITY.COM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <rtravelocity.com>, <trabvelocity.com>, <travbelocity.com>, <traveklocity.com>, <travelkocity.com>, <travelocithy.com>, <travelociuty.com>, <travelociyty.com>, <travelocxity.com>, <traveloxcity.com>, <travelpocity.com>, <travrelocity.com>, <travwelocity.com>, <trsavelocity.com> and <ytravelocity.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <rtravelocity.com>, <trabvelocity.com>, <travbelocity.com>, <traveklocity.com>, <travelkocity.com>, <travelocithy.com>, <travelociuty.com>, <travelociyty.com>, <travelocxity.com>, <traveloxcity.com>, <travelpocity.com>, <travrelocity.com>, <travwelocity.com>, <trsavelocity.com> and <ytravelocity.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Travelocity.com
LP, holds a trademark registration for its TRAVELOCITY.COM mark with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,466,132 issued July 3,
2001) in connection with transportaion reservation services including airline
reservation services, rental cars, hotel services and arranging travel tours
via a global computer network.
Respondent registered the
disputed domain names on
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."
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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.
Multiple
Respondents
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” The Panel finds that Complainant has presented sufficient evidence that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same entity.
Complainant asserts rights in its TRAVELOCITY.COM mark
through its holding of a trademark registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 2,466,132 issued
Complainant argues that
Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s
TRAVELOCITY.COM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s disputed domain names all merely
add an additional letter to the entirety of Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds that the addition of a single
letter to a complainant’s mark is not sufficient to negate a finding of
confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4,
2004) (“The mere addition of a single
letter to the complainant’s mark does not remove the respondent’s domain names
from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the complainant’s mark
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also
Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA
95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (by misspelling words and adding letters
to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders
the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <rtravelocity.com>, <trabvelocity.com>,
<travbelocity.com>, <traveklocity.com>, <travelkocity.com>,
<travelocithy.com>, <travelociuty.com>, <travelociyty.com>,
<travelocxity.com>, <traveloxcity.com>, <travelpocity.com>,
<travrelocity.com>, <travwelocity.com>, <trsavelocity.com>
and <ytravelocity.com> domain names are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s TRAVELOCITY.COM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent lacks rights and
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant is first required to make a prima facie case in support of its
allegations at which point the burden then shifts to Respondent to prove that
it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds that Complainant has established
a prima facie case in its
Complaint. Respondent has failed to
submit a Response to these proceedings from which the Panel can infer that
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See
Hanna-Barbera
Prods., Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that
the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent
lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent
to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin
Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that Complainant has not authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its mark in a domain name. Complainant alleges that the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Without any evidence in the record to the contrary, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name).
Respondent registered the disputed domain names on
Complainant argues that Respondent is using a typographical
error in the confusingly similar disputed domain names to redirect Internet
users to the resolving website of Complainant’s competitor from which
Respondent presumably receives affiliate fees. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s
use constitutes typosquatting and as such Respondent lacks rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that the respondent lacked rights and
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it “engaged
in the practice of typosquatting by taking advantage of Internet users who
attempt to access Complainant's <indymac.com> website but mistakenly
misspell Complainant's mark by typing the letter ‘x’ instead of the letter
‘c’”); see also
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect
Internet users to <orbitz.com> a website of Complainant’s competitor in
the travel services industry. Thus
Internet users intending to purchase goods and services from Complainant may
unintentionally purchase those same goods and services from a competitor rather
than from Complainant. The Panel finds
that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names constitutes a disruption of
Complainant’s business pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See
St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21,
2007) (“This Panel concludes that by redirecting Internet users seeking
information on Complainant’s educational institution to competing websites,
Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see
also America Online, Inc. v. Tapia, FA 328159 (Nat. Arb.
Forum
Respondent uses the
confusingly similar disputed domain names to intentionally attract Internet
users seeking Complainant’s products and services to Respondent’s website that
redirects Internet users to a website of Complainant’s competitor in the travel
services industry. Complainant alleges,
and the Panel can infer, that Respondent receives affiliate fees from
Complainant’s competitor based on these redirections. Therefore, the Panel finds that this is
sufficient evidence that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain
names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
As established previously, Respondent has engaged in the
practice of typosquatting by using an intentional misspelling of Complainant’s
TRAVELOCITY.COM mark. The panel finds
that typosquatting is itself evidence of bad faith registration and use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Dermalogica, Inc. v. Domains
to Develop, FA 175201 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2003) (finding that the <dermatalogica.com>
domain name was a “simple misspelling” of the complainant's DERMALOGICA
mark which indicated typosquatting and bad faith pursuant to Policy 4 ¶
(a)(iii)); see also Internet Movie
Database, Inc. v. Temme, FA 449837 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant also argues that Respondent’s use of false and
misleading WHOIS contact information is further evidence of bad faith. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s
failure to provide accurate WHOIS information is evidence of Respondent’s bad
faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See
Home Dir., Inc. v. HomeDirector,
D2000-0111, (WIPO
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <rtravelocity.com>, <trabvelocity.com>, <travbelocity.com>, <traveklocity.com>, <travelkocity.com>, <travelocithy.com>, <travelociuty.com>, <travelociyty.com>, <travelocxity.com>, <traveloxcity.com>, <travelpocity.com>, <travrelocity.com>, <travwelocity.com>, <trsavelocity.com> and <ytravelocity.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: May 20, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum