Priceline.com, Inc. v. Bin g Glu / G Design
Claim Number: FA1403001547250
Complainant is Priceline.com, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Bin g Glu / G Design (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <pricelkine.com>, <pricfline.com>, and <prlceline.com>, registered with Gal Communication (CommuniGal) Ltd.
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 National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 6, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 6, 2014.
On March 12, 2014, Gal Communication (CommuniGal) Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <pricelkine.com>, <pricfline.com>, and <prlceline.com> domain names are registered with Gal Communication (CommuniGal) Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Gal Communication (CommuniGal) Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gal Communication (CommuniGal) Ltd. 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 March 18, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 7, 2014 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@pricelkine.com, postmaster@pricfline.com, postmaster@prlceline.com. Also on March 18, 2014, 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 14, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
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 (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 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
Complainant is a leading online travel company that offers hotel and accommodation reservations at over 295,000 properties worldwide. Complainant was launched in the United States in 1998 and now provides online travel services in over 180 countries and territories, receiving over 9 million unique visitors each month. Complainant owns various United States trademark registrations for PRICELINE, PRICELINE.COM, and related marks.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its registered trademarks, characterizing the domain names as instances of “typosquatting.” Complainant contends further that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, on the grounds that (inter alia) Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain names; Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its marks; Respondent has used the domain names to redirect Internet users to websites featuring links to third-party websites, some of which compete directly with Complainant; and the domain names were registered no earlier than 2004, significantly after both the first use in commerce and the registration of Complainant’s marks. Finally, Complainant contends that the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith, based upon (inter alia) Respondent’s alleged typosquatting; Respondent’s use of the domain names for click-through websites containing links to competing services; and Respondent’s status as a “recalcitrant serial cybersquatter / typosquatter,” evidenced by numerous prior decisions under the Policy and by other domain names registered by Respondent.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and have been 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(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.”). In light of the apparent lack of care devoted to the preparation of the Complaint in this matter, however, the Panel is reluctant to rely upon the representations made therein, and considers them only to the extent that they are clearly supported by accompanying evidence. See Priceline.com, Inc. v. Above.com Legal, FA 1547289 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 11, 2014).
Each of the disputed domain names is identical to Complainant’s PRICELINE.COM mark, but for the addition or substitution of a single letter. The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See id. (finding <pricelinee.com> confusingly similar to PRICELINE.COM).
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The evidence before the Panel suffices to make a prime facie case, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of rights or legitimate interests. The Panel finds that Complainant has met its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and have been 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’s registration of three domain names that are all nearly identical to Complainant’s mark, together with the use of those domain names to link to commercial websites that compete with Complainant, is indicative of bad faith under both of these provisions of the Policy. See, e.g., Priceline.com, Inc., supra. 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 <pricelkine.com>, <pricfline.com>, and <prlceline.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: April 15, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page