Choice Hotels International, Inc. v.
ResSystem.com, Inc. (a/k/a Finlaw Agency and ReservationSystem.com, Inc.)
Claim
Number: FA0406000282797
Complainant is Choice Hotels International, Inc. (“Complainant”),
represented by N. Christopher Norton of Arent Fox, PLLC,
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036. Respondent is ResSystem.com,
Inc. (a/k/a Finlaw Agency and ReservationSystem.com,
Inc.) (“Respondent”), 4508 Magnolia Drive, Panama City, FL 32408.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <qualitysuitesorlando.com>, <sleep-inn-orlando-reservations.com>,
<clarionhotels-orlando.com>, <econolodge-orlando.com>,
<comfortsuites-orlando-reservations.com>, registered with Bulkregister,
Llc.
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.
Sandra
Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on June 3, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint
on June 7, 2004.
On
June 9, 2004, Bulkregister, Llc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain names <qualitysuitesorlando.com>, <sleep-inn-orlando-reservations.com>,
<clarionhotels-orlando.com>, <econolodge-orlando.com>,
<comfortsuites-orlando-reservations.com> are registered with Bulkregister,
Llc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Bulkregister,
Llc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Bulkregister, Llc. 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
June 10, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
June 30, 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@qualitysuitesorlando.com,
postmaster@sleep-inn-orlando-reservations.com, postmaster@clarionhotels-orlando.com,
postmaster@econolodge-orlando.com,
postmaster@comfortsuites-orlando-reservations.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
July 9, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra Franklin 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 <qualitysuitesorlando.com>,
<sleep-inn-orlando-reservations.com>, <clarionhotels-orlando.com>,
<econolodge-orlando.com>, <comfortsuites-orlando-reservations.com>
domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUALITY, QUALITY SUITES,
SLEEP INN, CLARION, CLARION HOTEL, ECONO LODGE, and COMFORT SUITES marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <qualitysuitesorlando.com>, <sleep-inn-orlando-reservations.com>,
<clarionhotels-orlando.com>, <econolodge-orlando.com>,
<comfortsuites-orlando-reservations.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <qualitysuitesorlando.com>,
<sleep-inn-orlando-reservations.com>, <clarionhotels-orlando.com>,
<econolodge-orlando.com>, <comfortsuites-orlando-reservations.com>
domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
Choice Hotels International, Inc., is in the hotel, motel, and restaurant
services business. Complainant holds
numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office for the QUALITY (Reg. No. 1,050,372 issued October 12, 1976), QUALITY
SUITES (Reg No. 1,699,581 issued July 7, 1992 and Reg. No. 2,732,875 issued
July 1, 2003), SLEEP INN (Reg. No. 1,690,604 issued June 2, 1992 and Reg. No.
2,665,526 issued December 24, 2002), SLEEP INN INN & SUITES (Reg. No.
2,697,638 issued March 18, 2003), CLARION (Reg. No. 1,799,824 issued October
19, 1993 and Reg. No. 2,031,850 issued January 21, 1997), CLARION HOTEL (Reg.
No. 1,703,941 issued July 28, 1992 and Reg. No. 2,333,128 issued March 21,
2000), ECONO LODGE (Reg. No. 2,178,518 issued August 4, 1998 and Reg. No.
1,799,814 issued October 19, 1993), and COMFORT SUITES (Reg. No. 1,712,482
issued September 1, 1992 and Reg. No. 2,665,525 issued December 24, 2002)
marks. Complainant has used these marks
continuously and extensively in association with its hotel, motel, and
restaurant business since at least as early as 1939 and as late as 2001.
Complainant owns
registrations for the <qualitysuite.com>, <qsuites.com>,
<qsuites.net>, <qsuites.org>, <sleepinn.com>,
<sleepinns.com>, <clarionhotel.com>, <econo-lodge.com>,
<econolodge.com>, <comfortsuites.com>, <comfortsuite.com>,
and other domain names. Complainant
uses these sites to advertise its hotel services and to provide hotel
reservation services.
Respondent
registered the <qualitysuitesorlando.com> domain name on April 27,
2001 and the <sleep-inn-orlando-revervations.com>, <clarionhotels-orlando.com>,
<econolodge-orlando.com>, and <comfortsuites-orlando-reservations.com>
domain names on July 3, 2002.
Respondent is using the disputed domain names to offer hotel reservation
services for Complainant’s hotels and for Complainant’s competitors.
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.
Complainant has
established with extrinsic proof in this proceeding that it has rights in its
marks through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark office
and by continuous use of its marks in commerce since at least as early as 1939
and as late as 2001. 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.
The <qualitysuitesorlando.com>,
<econolodge-orlando.com>, <sleep-inn-orlando-reservations.com>
and <comfortsuites-orlando-reservations.com> domain names
registered by Respondent are confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUALITY
SUITES, ECONO LODGE, SLEEP INN, and COMFORT SUITES marks because the domain
names incorporate Complainant’s marks in their entirety, adding only the
geographic term “Orlando” by itself or with the generic or descriptive term
“reservations” and a hyphen. The mere
addition of a hyphen and a geographic, generic or descriptive term to
Complainant’s marks does not negate the confusing similarity of Respondent’s
domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
See Chernow Communications Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18,
2000) holding “that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens,
does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark"; see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Asian On-Line This Domain For Sale, FA 94636
(Nat. Arb. Forum May 17, 2000) finding that the domain names, which consist of
“ao-l” and a geographic term are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark; see also 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.
The <clarionhotels-orlando.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CLARION HOTEL mark because
it includes the entire mark, adding only the letter “s”, a hyphen, and the
geographic term “Orlando.” The addition
of the letter “s” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the
registered mark, and the addition of a hyphen between the mark and the
geographic term does not negate the confusing similarity between the domain
name and the mark. See Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass’n v. InterActive Communications, Inc.,
D2000-0788 (WIPO Aug. 28, 2000) finding that a domain name which merely adds
the letter ‘s’ to Complainant’s mark is sufficiently similar to the mark to
cause a likelihood of confusion among the users of Complainant’s services and
those who were to view a web site provided by Respondent accessed through the
contested domain name; see also
Chernow Communications Inc. v. Kimball,
D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) holding “that the use or absence of punctuation
marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a
mark"); see also JVC Americas Corp. v. Macafee, CPR006 (CPR
Nov. 10, 2000) finding that the domain name registered by Respondent,
<jvc-america.com>, is substantially similar to, and nearly identical to
Complainant's JVC mark.
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant
asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain names. Due to Respondent’s
failure to respond to the Complaint, it is assumed that Respondent lacks rights
and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The burden shifts to Respondent to show that
it does have rights or legitimate interests once Complainant establishes a prima
facie case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
See G.D. Searle v.
Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) holding that where
Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
with respect to the domain name it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward
with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is
“uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”; see also Do The Hustle, LLC v.
Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) finding that once Complainant
asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to
the domain, the burden shifts to Respondent to provide credible evidence that
substantiates its claim of rights and 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,
where Complainant makes the prima facie showing and Respondent does not
respond, the Panel may accept 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 Vertical
Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum
July 31, 2000) holding that Respondent’s failure to respond allows all
reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be deemed
true.
Respondent is
using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s
websites that offer hotel reservation services for Complainant’s hotels in
addition to hotels in direct competition with Complainant. Respondent’s use of domain names that are
confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks to redirect Internet users
interested in Complainant’s goods or services to a commercial website that
offers Complainant’s goods and services without authorization from Complainant
as well as goods and services of Complainant’s competitors is not a use in connection
with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or
a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See Nike, Inc. v. Dias, FA 135016 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan.
7, 2002) finding no “bona fide” offering of goods or services where Respondent
used Complainant’s mark without authorization to attract Internet users to its
website, which offered both Complainant’s products and those of Complainant’s
competitors; see also Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Halpern,
D2000-0700 (WIPO Dec. 10, 2000) finding that domain names used to sell
Complainant’s goods without Complainant’s authority, as well as others’ goods,
is not a bona fide use); see also
N. Coast Med., Inc. v. Allegro Med.,
FA 95541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2000) finding no rights or legitimate
interests in a domain name that diverted Internet users to Respondent’s
competing website through the use of Complainant’s mark.
Finally,
Respondent offered no evidence, and no proof in the record suggests, that
Respondent is commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. Furthermore, Complainant did not authorize
or license Respondent to use its marks.
Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in
the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan.
23, 2001) finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when
Respondent is not known by the mark; see
also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v.
Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) finding no rights or
legitimate interests where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and
never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the
trademarked name.
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent
intentionally registered domain names that contain in their entirety
Complainant’s well-known marks for Respondent’s commercial gain. Respondent’s domain names divert Internet
users who seek Complainant’s goods and products to Respondent’s commercial
websites through the use of domain names that are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s marks. Furthermore,
Respondent is unfairly and opportunistically benefiting from the goodwill
associated with Complainant’s marks.
Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain,
constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See
Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir.
2002) ("While an intent to confuse consumers is not required for a finding
of trademark infringement, intent to deceive is strong evidence of a likelihood
of confusion"); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO
Dec. 11, 2000) finding that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract
Internet users to his website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of
confusion with Complainant’s mark and offering the same chat services via his
website as Complainant); see also
Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Lab.,
D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) finding bad faith where Respondent's use of the
domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are offered
to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that Complainant
is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site.
Additionally,
Respondent registered the domain names for the primary purpose of disrupting
Complainant’s business by redirecting Internet traffic intended for Complainant
to Respondent’s website that directly competed with Complainant by providing
similar hotel reservation services.
Registration of a domain name for the primary purpose of disrupting the
business of a competitor is evidence of bad faith use and registration pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Lubbock Radio Paging v. Venture Tele-Messaging, FA 96102 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Dec. 23, 2000) concluding that domain names were registered and used in
bad faith where Respondent and Complainant were in the same line of business in
the same market area; see also Puckett, Individually v. Miller,
D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) finding that Respondent has diverted business
from Complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy 4(b)(iii); see also Hewlett Packard Co. v. Full Sys., FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22,
2000) finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name primarily for
the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant by offering personal
e-mail accounts under the domain name <openmail.com> which is identical
to Complainant’s services under the OPENMAIL mark.
Furthermore,
while each of the four circumstances listed under Policy ¶ 4(b), if proven,
evidences bad faith use and registration of a domain name, additional factors
can also be used to support findings of bad faith registration and use. See
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v.
Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) finding that in determining
if a domain name has been registered in bad faith, the Panel must look at the
“totality of circumstances”; see also
Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“the
examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b) are intended to be illustrative,
rather than exclusive”).
Respondent’s
registration of domain names that incorporate Complainant’s well-known
registered marks in their entirety, deviating only with the addition of a
hyphen and geographic, generic, or descriptive terms, suggests that Respondent
knew of Complainant’s rights in the marks.
Furthermore, the additional term “reservation” incorporated into several
of the domain names describes an important aspect of Complainant’s business and
the websites to which the disputed domain names are linked feature
Complainant’s products and services as well as those of its competitors. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent chose
the disputed domain names based on the distinctive and well-known qualities of
Complainant’s marks. See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v.
Smith, 279
F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb. 2002) ("Where an alleged infringer chooses
a mark he knows to be similar to another, one can infer an intent to
confuse"); see also Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA
94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) finding that evidence of bad faith
includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time
of registration; see also Ty Inc. v. Parvin, D2000-0688 (WIPO Nov.
9, 2000) finding that Respondent’s registration and use of an identical and/or
confusingly similar domain name was in bad faith where Complainant’s BEANIE
BABIES mark was famous and Respondent should have been aware of it.
The Panel finds
that 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 <qualitysuitesorlando.com>, <sleep-inn-orlando-reservations.com>,
<clarionhotels-orlando.com>, <econolodge-orlando.com>,
<comfortsuites-orlando-reservations.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra Franklin, Panelist
Dated: July 23, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page