Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services
Claim Number: FA1403001547908
Complainant is Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Leah H. Martinez, Florida, USA. Respondent is Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services (“Respondent”), Chile.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <royalcaribbeaninternational.com>, registered with Internet.bs Corp.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 11, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 11, 2014.
On March 12, 2014, Internet.bs Corp. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <royalcaribbeaninternational.com> domain name is registered with Internet.bs Corp. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet.bs Corp. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet.bs Corp. 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 13, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 2, 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@royalcaribbeaninternational.com. Also on March 13, 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 11, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., holds United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") registration for the ROYAL CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL marks.
Respondent’s <royalcaribbeaninternational.com> domain name is identical to the ROYAL CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL mark.
Respondent is not commonly known by the <royalcaribbeaninternational.com> domain name, or any variation thereof. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <royalcaribbeaninternational.com> domain name because the domain name’s website is being used to host related commercial advertisements. The Respondent’s <royalcaribbeaninternational.com> website is similar in appearance to Complainant’s official website.
Respondent’s decision to host related links on the <royalcaribbeaninternational.com> domain name that send users to competing businesses is evidence of a Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) bad faith act of unfair commercial disruption. Internet users who visit the <royalcaribbeaninternational.com> domain name are likely to be confused into believing the domain name has some relationship to Complainant. These Internet users will generate advertising revenue for Respondent each time they click on one of the disputed domain name’s hyperlinks.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns a USPTO registration for the ROYAL CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL mark.
Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the ROYAL CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL mark.
Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any capacity.
The <royalcaribbeaninternational.com> domain name is similar in appearance to Complainant’s official web presence and is being used to host commercial advertisements related to Complainant and to Complainant’s competition.
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.”).
The at-issue domain name is identical to a mark in which the Complainant has trademark rights.
Complainant’s USPTO registration of ROYAL CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), notwithstanding that Respondent may residence outside the United States. See, e.g., Scripps Networks, LLC v. chen wenjie, FA 1523127 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 12, 2013) (“The Panel finds that Complainant’s USPTO registration establishes Complainant’s rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), even despite the fact that Respondent appears to reside out of the United States.”).
Respondent’s <royalcaribbeaninternational.com> domain name consists of Complainant’s entire trademark less the spaces and with the top-level domain name “.com” appended thereto. The removal of spaces and the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” are insignificant modifications to Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, the Panel finds that the at-issue domain name is identical to Complainant’s ROYAL CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the <redhat.org> domain name is identical to the complainant’s RED HAT mark because the mere addition of gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
WHOIS information for the <royalcaribbeaninternational.com>domain name lists “Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services” as the domain name’s registrant and there is nothing in the record that otherwise suggests Respondent is commonly known by the <royalcaribbeaninternational.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply).
Additionally, Respondent uses the <royalcaribbeaninternational.com> domain name to host commercial advertisements related to and competing with Complainant. Such use is neither a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the at-issue domain name. See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (finding that the respondent had no Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering in promoting related and competing hyperlinks through the disputed domain name’s website).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and absent evidence to the contrary conclusively demonstrates that Respondent lacks both rights and interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below, Policy ¶ 4(b) bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
Respondent hosts hyperlinks on the website addressed by the <royalcaribbeaninternational.com> domain name. As mentioned above, the links on the <royalcaribbeaninternational.com> website are related to Complainant and when accessed some may deliver Internet visitors to competing businesses. Presumably these links benefit Respondent on a pay-per-click basis or otherwise. Indeed, the featured hyperlinks contain Complainant related terms such as “cruise, “vacations,” as well as the name of popular geographic regions where Complainant’s potential customers may want to visit. Importantly, Respondent’s scheme to capitalize on the similarity between the at-issue domain name and Complainant’s trademark disrupts Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Savchenko, FA 1105728 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 12, 2007) (“Respondent currently utilizes the disputed domain name, <usaa-insurance.net>, to resolve to a website featuring links to third-party competitors of Complainant. The Panel finds such use establishes Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Furthermore, Respondent dresses the at-issue website similar to Complainant’s official website at <royalcaribbean.com> indicating, along with its use of an identical domain name, Respondent’s desire to pass itself off as Complainant. Visitors to the <royalcaribbeaninternational.com> website are likely to suffer from a misunderstanding that the website is sponsored by, or related to, Complainant. Upon inadvertently landing on Respondent’s website such visitors are poised to generate advertising revenue for Respondent by clicking on one or more of the featured hyperlinks. Respondent thereby intends to inappropriately profit from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s ROYAL CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL mark which -via the at-issue domain name- ultimately conveys wayward visitors to the illicit <royalcaribbeaninternational.com> website. The foregoing circumstances demonstrate Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <royalcaribbeaninternational.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: April 16, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page