Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide,
Inc. v. Reed Anderson Tennis School
Claim
Number: FA0404000253017
Complainant is Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide,
Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Teresa
C. Tucker, of Grossman, Tucker, Perreault & Pfleger
PLLC, 55 South Commercial
Street, Manchester, NH 03101.
Respondent is Reed Anderson
Tennis School (“Respondent”), 35014 Mission Hills Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <starwoodspa.com> and <westinspa.com>,
registered with Network Solutions, Inc.
The
undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially
and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as
Panelist in this proceeding.
Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on April 14, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 16, 2004.
On
April 21, 2004, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain names <starwoodspa.com> and <westinspa.com>
are registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the names. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent
is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby
agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance
with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On
April 21, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
May 11, 2004 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was
transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons
listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing
contacts, and to postmaster@starwoodspa.com and postmaster@westinspa.com by
e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
May 24, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., 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."
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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <starwoodspa.com> and
<westinspa.com> domain names are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s STARWOOD and WESTIN marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <starwoodspa.com> and <westinspa.com>
domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <starwoodspa.com>
and <westinspa.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant has
rights in the STARWOOD and WESTIN marks and uses the marks for its hotel
advertising and hotel reservation services.
Complainant, through its registrations with the USPTO holds rights in
the STARWOOD mark (Reg. Nos. 2,525,771 and 2,735,078, registered on January 1,
2002 and July 8, 2003, respectively).
Also, Complainant, through its related companies, holds several
registrations for the WESTIN mark with the USPTO, including Reg. Nos. 2,257,629
and 1,720,799 (registered on June 29, 1999 and September 29, 1992,
respectively).
Respondent
registered the <starwoodspa.com> and <westinspa.com> domain
names on January 13, 2003. The domain
names currently resolve to an “under construction” website. Respondent is a tennis school doing business
with the guests of Complainant’s Westin Mission Hills hotel in Rancho Mirage,
California but is not affiliated with Complainant and has not been authorized
to use Complainant’s trademarks.
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.
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.
Due to
Respondent’s failure to provide a Response, the Panel accepts all reasonable
allegations and inferences in the Complaint as true. See 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.”); see also Charles
Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it
appropriate for the Panel to draw adverse inferences from Respondent’s failure
to reply to the Complaint).
Complainant
asserts that through its related companies it holds several registrations for
the WESTIN mark with the USPTO.
Although Complainant has not provided evidence showing a relationship
between Complainant and the holder of the WESTIN mark, due to Respondent’s
failure to contest the Complaint, the Panel accepts Complainant’s assertion as
true. Thus, the Panel concludes that
Complainant has rights in the WESTIN mark.
See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption
that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”); see
also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v.
Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions
have held that registration of a mark is prima
facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the
mark is inherently distinctive.
Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption).
Moreover,
Complainant registered the STARWOOD PREFERRED PLANNER and STARWOOD APPROVED
VENDOR marks with the USPTO, which include the primary identifier
STARWOOD. The STARWOOD APPROVED VENDOR
and STARWOOD PREFERRED PLANNER marks were registered with the USPTO on January
1, 2002 and July 8, 2003, respectively (Reg. Nos. 2,525,771 and
2,735,078). The Panel concludes that
Complainant has rights in the STARWOOD mark.
Respondent’s
<starwoodspa.com> and <westinspa.com> domain names are confusingly
similar to Complainant’s STARWOOD and WESTIN marks because the domain names
fully incorporate the marks and merely add the generic word “spa.” The addition of the generic word “spa” does
not distinguish the domain names from Complainant’s marks. See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding
confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical
mark of Complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Am.
Online, Inc. v. Anytime Online Traffic School, FA 146930 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Apr. 11, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s domain names, which incorporated Complainant’s entire mark and
merely added the descriptive terms “traffic school,” “defensive driving,” and
“driver improvement” did not add any distinctive features capable of overcoming
a claim of confusing similarity).
Furthermore, the
addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant in determining
whether the <starwoodspa.com> and <westinspa.com> domain
names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. See Pomellato S.p.A
v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com>
identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD)
“.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429
(WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as
“.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining
whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
The Panel finds
the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent has
failed to contest the allegations of the Complaint; therefore, the Panel
presumes that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <starwoodspa.com>
and <westinspa.com> domain names. See Parfums Christian
Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not
submitting a Response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which
could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see
also Pavillion Agency, Inc. v.
Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that
Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have
no legitimate interest in the domain names).
Furthermore,
nothing in the record establishes that Respondent is commonly known by the <starwoodspa.com>
and <westinspa.com> domain names. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights and
legitimate interests in the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. 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); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM,
D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior
rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is
not commonly known by the domain name in question).
Also,
Respondent’s <starwoodspa.com> and <westinspa.com> domain
names were registered over a year ago and resolve to an “under construction”
website. Thus, Respondent has passively
held the domain names, which does not constitute 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
Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero,
D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where Respondent failed to submit a Response to the Complaint and had made no
use of the domain name in question); see also Melbourne IT Ltd. v. Stafford, D2000-1167 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000)
(finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where there is no
proof that Respondent made preparations to use the domain name or one like it
in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services before notice of
the domain name dispute, the domain name did not resolve to a website, and
Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name).
The Panel finds
the Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s <starwoodspa.com>
and <westinspa.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s
marks and have been passively held for over a year. Respondent’s passive holding of the domain names is evidence of
bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000)
(concluding that Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the
requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000)
(finding that Respondent made no use of the domain name or website that
connects with the domain name, and that passive holding of a domain name
permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith).
Furthermore, the
Panel finds that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of
Complainant’s marks because Respondent is a tennis school that does business
with guests of one of Complainant’s hotels and because the marks were
registered with the USPTO. Registration
of a domain name confusingly similar to a mark, despite knowledge of the mark
holder’s rights, is evidence of bad faith registration pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(iii). See Digi Int’l v. DDI
Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (“there is a legal
presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of
Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively.”); see also Orange
Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002)
(“Complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the Principal Register of the USPTO,
a status that confers constructive notice on those seeking to register or use
the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof.”).
The Panel finds
the Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <starwoodspa.com> and <westinspa.com>
domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated:
June 4, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page