Hyatt Corporation and Hyatt International
Corporation v. Unasi Inc.
Claim
Number: FA0508000545021
Complainant’s
are Hyatt Corporation and Hyatt International Corporation (collectively “Complainant”), represented
by David A. Copland, of Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP, 225 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606. Respondent is Unasi Inc. (“Respondent”), Galerias 3, Zona 5, Panama, 5235.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <haytt.com>, <atlantahyatt.com>,
<aucklandhyatt.com>, <austinhyatt.com>, <bangkokhyatt.com>,
<beavercreekhyatt.com>, <bellevuehyatt.com>, <birminghamhyatt.com>,
<bostonhyatt.com>, <calgaryhyatt.com>, <cancunhyatt.com>,
<casablancahyatt.com>, <charlottehyatt.com>, <cincinnatihyatt.com>,
<crowncenterhyatt.com>, <doradobeachhyatt.com>, <dulleshyatt.com>,
<grandcaymanhyatt.com>, <grandhyatt.net>, <granhyatt.com>,
<hongkonggrandhyatt.com>, <hongkonghyatt.com>, <hyattalbuquerque.com>,
<hyattanaheim.com>, <hyattaustin.com>, <hyattbaltimore.com>,
<hyattbangkok.com>, <hyattbuenosaires.com>, <hyattcincinnati.com>,
<hyattcolumbus.com>, <hyattgreenville.com>, <hyattirvine.com>,
<hyattlosangeles.com>, <hyattlouisville.com>, <hyattminneapolis.com>,
<hyattmonterey.com>, <hyattmontreal.com>, <hyattnewport.com>,
<hyattnewyork.com>, <hyattphiladelphia.com>, <hyattprinceton.com>,
<hyattregency.net>, <hyattsanantonio.com>, <hyattsantiago.com>,
<hyattscottsdale.com>, <hyattseattle.com>, <hyattseoul.com>,
<hyattsingapore.com>, <hyattsuite.com>, <hyattsuites.com>,
<hyattsydney.com>, <hyatttampa.com>, <hyatttokyo.com>,
<hyattwashington.com>, <hyattwichita.com>, <istanbulhyatt.com>,
<kansascityhyatt.com>, <lakelasvegashyatt.com>, <lamangahyatt.com>,
<louisvillehyatt.com>, <macauhyatt.com>, <manchesterhyatt.com>,
<minneapolishyatt.com>, <montrealhyatt.com>, <newportbeachhyatt.com>,
<oakbrookhyatt.com>, <oharehyatt.com>, <parishyatt.com>,
<parkchicagohyatt.com>, <parkphiladelphiahyatt.com>, <philadelphiahyatt.com>,
<princetonhyatt.com>, <restonhyatt.com>, <sanantoniohyatt.com>,
<sanantonioregencyhyatt.com>, <sanctuarycovehyatt.com>,
<sandiegohyatt.com>, <seattlehyatt.com>, <seoulhyatt.com>,
<stlouishyatt.com>, <sydneyhyatt.com>, <tokyohyatt.com>,
<tokyoparkhyatt.com>, <vancouverhyatt.com>, <waikikihyatt.com>,
and <wwwgrandhyatt.com>, registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a
Dotregistrar.com.
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.
The
Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August
20, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint
on August 22, 2005.
On
August 23, 2005, Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com confirmed by e-mail
to the National Arbitration Forum that the <haytt.com>, <atlantahyatt.com>,
<aucklandhyatt.com>, <austinhyatt.com>, <bangkokhyatt.com>,
<beavercreekhyatt.com>, <bellevuehyatt.com>, <birminghamhyatt.com>,
<bostonhyatt.com>, <calgaryhyatt.com>, <cancunhyatt.com>,
<casablancahyatt.com>, <charlottehyatt.com>, <cincinnatihyatt.com>,
<crowncenterhyatt.com>, <doradobeachhyatt.com>, <dulleshyatt.com>,
<grandcaymanhyatt.com>, <grandhyatt.net>, <granhyatt.com>,
<hongkonggrandhyatt.com>, <hongkonghyatt.com>, <hyattalbuquerque.com>,
<hyattanaheim.com>, <hyattaustin.com>, <hyattbaltimore.com>,
<hyattbangkok.com>, <hyattbuenosaires.com>, <hyattcincinnati.com>,
<hyattcolumbus.com>, <hyattgreenville.com>, <hyattirvine.com>,
<hyattlosangeles.com>, <hyattlouisville.com>, <hyattminneapolis.com>,
<hyattmonterey.com>, <hyattmontreal.com>, <hyattnewport.com>,
<hyattnewyork.com>, <hyattphiladelphia.com>, <hyattprinceton.com>,
<hyattregency.net>, <hyattsanantonio.com>, <hyattsantiago.com>,
<hyattscottsdale.com>, <hyattseattle.com>, <hyattseoul.com>,
<hyattsingapore.com>, <hyattsuite.com>, <hyattsuites.com>,
<hyattsydney.com>, <hyatttampa.com>, <hyatttokyo.com>,
<hyattwashington.com>, <hyattwichita.com>, <istanbulhyatt.com>,
<kansascityhyatt.com>, <lakelasvegashyatt.com>, <lamangahyatt.com>,
<louisvillehyatt.com>, <macauhyatt.com>, <manchesterhyatt.com>,
<minneapolishyatt.com>, <montrealhyatt.com>, <newportbeachhyatt.com>,
<oakbrookhyatt.com>, <oharehyatt.com>, <parishyatt.com>,
<parkchicagohyatt.com>, <parkphiladelphiahyatt.com>, <philadelphiahyatt.com>,
<princetonhyatt.com>, <restonhyatt.com>, <sanantoniohyatt.com>,
<sanantonioregencyhyatt.com>, <sanctuarycovehyatt.com>,
<sandiegohyatt.com>, <seattlehyatt.com>, <seoulhyatt.com>,
<stlouishyatt.com>, <sydneyhyatt.com>, <tokyohyatt.com>,
<tokyoparkhyatt.com>, <vancouverhyatt.com>, <waikikihyatt.com>,
and <wwwgrandhyatt.com> domain names are registered with Iholdings.com,
Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of
the names. Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com has verified that
Respondent is bound by the Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com 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
August 29, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
September 19, 2005 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@haytt.com, postmaster@atlantahyatt.com,
postmaster@aucklandhyatt.com, postmaster@austinhyatt.com,
postmaster@bangkokhyatt.com, postmaster@beavercreekhyatt.com,
postmaster@bellevuehyatt.com, postmaster@birminghamhyatt.com,
postmaster@bostonhyatt.com, postmaster@calgaryhyatt.com,
postmaster@cancunhyatt.com, postmaster@casablancahyatt.com,
postmaster@charlottehyatt.com, postmaster@cincinnatihyatt.com,
postmaster@crowncenterhyatt.com, postmaster@doradobeachhyatt.com,
postmaster@dulleshyatt.com, postmaster@grandcaymanhyatt.com,
postmaster@grandhyatt.net, postmaster@granhyatt.com,
postmaster@hongkonggrandhyatt.com, postmaster@hongkonghyatt.com,
postmaster@hyattalbuquerque.com, postmaster@hyattanaheim.com,
postmaster@hyattaustin.com, postmaster@hyattbaltimore.com,
postmaster@hyattbangkok.com, postmaster@hyattbuenosaires.com,
postmaster@hyattcincinnati.com, postmaster@hyattcolumbus.com,
postmaster@hyattgreenville.com, postmaster@hyattirvine.com,
postmaster@hyattlosangeles.com, postmaster@hyattlouisville.com,
postmaster@hyattminneapolis.com, postmaster@hyattmonterey.com,
postmaster@hyattmontreal.com, postmaster@hyattnewport.com,
postmaster@hyattnewyork.com, postmaster@hyattphiladelphia.com, postmaster@hyattprinceton.com,
postmaster@hyattregency.net, postmaster@hyattsanantonio.com, postmaster@hyattsantiago.com,
postmaster@hyattscottsdale.com, postmaster@hyattseattle.com,
postmaster@hyattseoul.com, postmaster@hyattsingapore.com, postmaster@hyattsuite.com,
postmaster@hyattsuites.com, postmaster@hyattsydney.com,
postmaster@hyatttampa.com, postmaster@hyatttokyo.com,
postmaster@hyattwashington.com, postmaster@hyattwichita.com,
postmaster@istanbulhyatt.com, postmaster@kansascityhyatt.com, postmaster@lakelasvegashyatt.com,
postmaster@lamangahyatt.com, postmaster@louisvillehyatt.com,
postmaster@macauhyatt.com, postmaster@manchesterhyatt.com,
postmaster@minneapolishyatt.com, postmaster@montrealhyatt.com,
postmaster@newportbeachhyatt.com, postmaster@oakbrookhyatt.com,
postmaster@oharehyatt.com, postmaster@parishyatt.com,
postmaster@parkchicagohyatt.com, postmaster@parkphiladelphiahyatt.com,
postmaster@philadelphiahyatt.com, postmaster@princetonhyatt.com,
postmaster@restonhyatt.com, postmaster@sanantoniohyatt.com,
postmaster@sanantonioregencyhyatt.com, postmaster@sanctuarycovehyatt.com,
postmaster@sandiegohyatt.com, postmaster@seattlehyatt.com,
postmaster@seoulhyatt.com, postmaster@stlouishyatt.com,
postmaster@sydneyhyatt.com, postmaster@tokyohyatt.com, postmaster@tokyoparkhyatt.com,
postmaster@vancouverhyatt.com, postmaster@waikikihyatt.com, and
postmaster@wwwgrandhyatt.com by e-mail.
Having
received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum
transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
September 26, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the
Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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." 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 <haytt.com>, <atlantahyatt.com>,
<aucklandhyatt.com>, <austinhyatt.com>, <bangkokhyatt.com>,
<beavercreekhyatt.com>, <bellevuehyatt.com>, <birminghamhyatt.com>,
<bostonhyatt.com>, <calgaryhyatt.com>, <cancunhyatt.com>,
<casablancahyatt.com>, <charlottehyatt.com>, <cincinnatihyatt.com>,
<crowncenterhyatt.com>, <doradobeachhyatt.com>, <dulleshyatt.com>,
<grandcaymanhyatt.com>, <grandhyatt.net>, <granhyatt.com>,
<hongkonggrandhyatt.com>, <hongkonghyatt.com>, <hyattalbuquerque.com>,
<hyattanaheim.com>, <hyattaustin.com>, <hyattbaltimore.com>,
<hyattbangkok.com>, <hyattbuenosaires.com>, <hyattcincinnati.com>,
<hyattcolumbus.com>, <hyattgreenville.com>, <hyattirvine.com>,
<hyattlosangeles.com>, <hyattlouisville.com>, <hyattminneapolis.com>,
<hyattmonterey.com>, <hyattmontreal.com>, <hyattnewport.com>,
<hyattnewyork.com>, <hyattphiladelphia.com>, <hyattprinceton.com>,
<hyattregency.net>, <hyattsanantonio.com>, <hyattsantiago.com>,
<hyattscottsdale.com>, <hyattseattle.com>, <hyattseoul.com>,
<hyattsingapore.com>, <hyattsuite.com>, <hyattsuites.com>,
<hyattsydney.com>, <hyatttampa.com>, <hyatttokyo.com>,
<hyattwashington.com>, <hyattwichita.com>, <istanbulhyatt.com>,
<kansascityhyatt.com>, <lakelasvegashyatt.com>, <lamangahyatt.com>,
<louisvillehyatt.com>, <macauhyatt.com>, <manchesterhyatt.com>,
<minneapolishyatt.com>, <montrealhyatt.com>, <newportbeachhyatt.com>,
<oakbrookhyatt.com>, <oharehyatt.com>, <parishyatt.com>,
<parkchicagohyatt.com>, <parkphiladelphiahyatt.com>, <philadelphiahyatt.com>,
<princetonhyatt.com>, <restonhyatt.com>, <sanantoniohyatt.com>,
<sanantonioregencyhyatt.com>, <sanctuarycovehyatt.com>,
<sandiegohyatt.com>, <seattlehyatt.com>, <seoulhyatt.com>,
<stlouishyatt.com>, <sydneyhyatt.com>, <tokyohyatt.com>,
<tokyoparkhyatt.com>, <vancouverhyatt.com>, <waikikihyatt.com>,
and <wwwgrandhyatt.com> domain names are confusingly similar or
identical to Complainant’s HYATT and GRAND HYATT marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <haytt.com>, <atlantahyatt.com>,
<aucklandhyatt.com>, <austinhyatt.com>, <bangkokhyatt.com>,
<beavercreekhyatt.com>, <bellevuehyatt.com>, <birminghamhyatt.com>,
<bostonhyatt.com>, <calgaryhyatt.com>, <cancunhyatt.com>,
<casablancahyatt.com>, <charlottehyatt.com>, <cincinnatihyatt.com>,
<crowncenterhyatt.com>, <doradobeachhyatt.com>, <dulleshyatt.com>,
<grandcaymanhyatt.com>, <grandhyatt.net>, <granhyatt.com>,
<hongkonggrandhyatt.com>, <hongkonghyatt.com>, <hyattalbuquerque.com>,
<hyattanaheim.com>, <hyattaustin.com>, <hyattbaltimore.com>,
<hyattbangkok.com>, <hyattbuenosaires.com>, <hyattcincinnati.com>,
<hyattcolumbus.com>, <hyattgreenville.com>, <hyattirvine.com>,
<hyattlosangeles.com>, <hyattlouisville.com>, <hyattminneapolis.com>,
<hyattmonterey.com>, <hyattmontreal.com>, <hyattnewport.com>,
<hyattnewyork.com>, <hyattphiladelphia.com>, <hyattprinceton.com>,
<hyattregency.net>, <hyattsanantonio.com>, <hyattsantiago.com>,
<hyattscottsdale.com>, <hyattseattle.com>, <hyattseoul.com>,
<hyattsingapore.com>, <hyattsuite.com>, <hyattsuites.com>,
<hyattsydney.com>, <hyatttampa.com>, <hyatttokyo.com>,
<hyattwashington.com>, <hyattwichita.com>, <istanbulhyatt.com>,
<kansascityhyatt.com>, <lakelasvegashyatt.com>, <lamangahyatt.com>,
<louisvillehyatt.com>, <macauhyatt.com>, <manchesterhyatt.com>,
<minneapolishyatt.com>, <montrealhyatt.com>, <newportbeachhyatt.com>,
<oakbrookhyatt.com>, <oharehyatt.com>, <parishyatt.com>,
<parkchicagohyatt.com>, <parkphiladelphiahyatt.com>, <philadelphiahyatt.com>,
<princetonhyatt.com>, <restonhyatt.com>, <sanantoniohyatt.com>,
<sanantonioregencyhyatt.com>, <sanctuarycovehyatt.com>,
<sandiegohyatt.com>, <seattlehyatt.com>, <seoulhyatt.com>,
<stlouishyatt.com>, <sydneyhyatt.com>, <tokyohyatt.com>,
<tokyoparkhyatt.com>, <vancouverhyatt.com>, <waikikihyatt.com>,
and <wwwgrandhyatt.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <haytt.com>,
<atlantahyatt.com>, <aucklandhyatt.com>, <austinhyatt.com>,
<bangkokhyatt.com>, <beavercreekhyatt.com>, <bellevuehyatt.com>,
<birminghamhyatt.com>, <bostonhyatt.com>, <calgaryhyatt.com>,
<cancunhyatt.com>, <casablancahyatt.com>, <charlottehyatt.com>,
<cincinnatihyatt.com>, <crowncenterhyatt.com>, <doradobeachhyatt.com>,
<dulleshyatt.com>, <grandcaymanhyatt.com>, <grandhyatt.net>,
<granhyatt.com>, <hongkonggrandhyatt.com>, <hongkonghyatt.com>,
<hyattalbuquerque.com>, <hyattanaheim.com>, <hyattaustin.com>,
<hyattbaltimore.com>, <hyattbangkok.com>, <hyattbuenosaires.com>,
<hyattcincinnati.com>, <hyattcolumbus.com>, <hyattgreenville.com>,
<hyattirvine.com>, <hyattlosangeles.com>, <hyattlouisville.com>,
<hyattminneapolis.com>, <hyattmonterey.com>, <hyattmontreal.com>,
<hyattnewport.com>, <hyattnewyork.com>, <hyattphiladelphia.com>,
<hyattprinceton.com>, <hyattregency.net>, <hyattsanantonio.com>,
<hyattsantiago.com>, <hyattscottsdale.com>, <hyattseattle.com>,
<hyattseoul.com>, <hyattsingapore.com>, <hyattsuite.com>,
<hyattsuites.com>, <hyattsydney.com>, <hyatttampa.com>,
<hyatttokyo.com>, <hyattwashington.com>, <hyattwichita.com>,
<istanbulhyatt.com>, <kansascityhyatt.com>, <lakelasvegashyatt.com>,
<lamangahyatt.com>, <louisvillehyatt.com>, <macauhyatt.com>,
<manchesterhyatt.com>, <minneapolishyatt.com>, <montrealhyatt.com>,
<newportbeachhyatt.com>, <oakbrookhyatt.com>, <oharehyatt.com>,
<parishyatt.com>, <parkchicagohyatt.com>, <parkphiladelphiahyatt.com>,
<philadelphiahyatt.com>, <princetonhyatt.com>, <restonhyatt.com>,
<sanantoniohyatt.com>, <sanantonioregencyhyatt.com>, <sanctuarycovehyatt.com>,
<sandiegohyatt.com>, <seattlehyatt.com>, <seoulhyatt.com>,
<stlouishyatt.com>, <sydneyhyatt.com>, <tokyohyatt.com>,
<tokyoparkhyatt.com>, <vancouverhyatt.com>, <waikikihyatt.com>,
and <wwwgrandhyatt.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant
Hyatt Corporation and Complainant Hyatt International Corporation are
subsidiaries of Global Hyatt Corporation.
These two entities will be collectively referred to as
“Complainant.” Complainant is a hotel
management company that operates hotels and resorts under the HYATT and GRAND
HYATT marks. Complainant currently
operates hotels in forty-three countries under the HYATT and GRAND HYATT
marks.
Complainant
holds several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the HYATT mark (i.e., Reg. No. 945,384
issued October 17, 1972). Complainant
holds a trademark registration with the USPTO for the GRAND HYATT mark (Reg.
No. 1,329,085 issued February 2, 1982).
Respondent
registered the <haytt.com>, <atlantahyatt.com>, <aucklandhyatt.com>,
<austinhyatt.com>, <bangkokhyatt.com>, <beavercreekhyatt.com>,
<bellevuehyatt.com>, <birminghamhyatt.com>, <bostonhyatt.com>,
<calgaryhyatt.com>, <cancunhyatt.com>, <casablancahyatt.com>,
<charlottehyatt.com>, <cincinnatihyatt.com>, <crowncenterhyatt.com>,
<doradobeachhyatt.com>, <dulleshyatt.com>, <grandcaymanhyatt.com>,
<grandhyatt.net>, <granhyatt.com>, <hongkonggrandhyatt.com>,
<hongkonghyatt.com>, <hyattalbuquerque.com>, <hyattanaheim.com>,
<hyattaustin.com>, <hyattbaltimore.com>, <hyattbangkok.com>,
<hyattbuenosaires.com>, <hyattcincinnati.com>, <hyattcolumbus.com>,
<hyattgreenville.com>, <hyattirvine.com>, <hyattlosangeles.com>,
<hyattlouisville.com>, <hyattminneapolis.com>, <hyattmonterey.com>,
<hyattmontreal.com>, <hyattnewport.com>, <hyattnewyork.com>,
<hyattphiladelphia.com>, <hyattprinceton.com>, <hyattregency.net>,
<hyattsanantonio.com>, <hyattsantiago.com>, <hyattscottsdale.com>,
<hyattseattle.com>, <hyattseoul.com>, <hyattsingapore.com>,
<hyattsuite.com>, <hyattsuites.com>, <hyattsydney.com>,
<hyatttampa.com>, <hyatttokyo.com>, <hyattwashington.com>,
<hyattwichita.com>, <istanbulhyatt.com>, <kansascityhyatt.com>,
<lakelasvegashyatt.com>, <lamangahyatt.com>, <louisvillehyatt.com>,
<macauhyatt.com>, <manchesterhyatt.com>, <minneapolishyatt.com>,
<montrealhyatt.com>, <newportbeachhyatt.com>, <oakbrookhyatt.com>,
<oharehyatt.com>, <parishyatt.com>, <parkchicagohyatt.com>,
<parkphiladelphiahyatt.com>, <philadelphiahyatt.com>,
<princetonhyatt.com>, <restonhyatt.com>, <sanantoniohyatt.com>,
<sanantonioregencyhyatt.com>, <sanctuarycovehyatt.com>,
<sandiegohyatt.com>, <seattlehyatt.com>, <seoulhyatt.com>,
<stlouishyatt.com>, <sydneyhyatt.com>, <tokyohyatt.com>,
<tokyoparkhyatt.com>, <vancouverhyatt.com>, <waikikihyatt.com>,
and <wwwgrandhyatt.com> domain names over a three-year period
between December 8, 2002 and July 7, 2005.
Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users
to Respondent’s websites that feature links to third-party websites that
compete with Complainant’s business.
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.
Complainant has
established rights in the HYATT and GRAND HYATT marks through registration of
the marks with the USPTO. See Am. Online, Inc. v. Thomas P. Culver Enters., D2001-0564 (WIPO June 18, 2001)
(finding that successful trademark registration with the USPTO creates a
presumption of rights in a mark); see also Innomed
Tech., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004)
(“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO
establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”).
Respondent’s <haytt.com>, <atlantahyatt.com>, <aucklandhyatt.com>,
<austinhyatt.com>, <bangkokhyatt.com>, <beavercreekhyatt.com>,
<bellevuehyatt.com>, <birminghamhyatt.com>, <bostonhyatt.com>,
<calgaryhyatt.com>, <cancunhyatt.com>, <casablancahyatt.com>,
<charlottehyatt.com>, <cincinnatihyatt.com>, <crowncenterhyatt.com>,
<doradobeachhyatt.com>, <dulleshyatt.com>, <grandcaymanhyatt.com>,
<hongkonghyatt.com>, <hyattalbuquerque.com>, <hyattanaheim.com>,
<hyattaustin.com>, <hyattbaltimore.com>, <hyattbangkok.com>,
<hyattbuenosaires.com>, <hyattcincinnati.com>, <hyattcolumbus.com>,
<hyattgreenville.com>, <hyattirvine.com>, <hyattlosangeles.com>,
<hyattlouisville.com>, <hyattminneapolis.com>, <hyattmonterey.com>,
<hyattmontreal.com>, <hyattnewport.com>, <hyattnewyork.com>,
<hyattphiladelphia.com>, <hyattprinceton.com>, <hyattregency.net>,
<hyattsanantonio.com>, <hyattsantiago.com>, <hyattscottsdale.com>,
<hyattseattle.com>, <hyattseoul.com>, <hyattsingapore.com>,
<hyattsuite.com>, <hyattsuites.com>, <hyattsydney.com>,
<hyatttampa.com>, <hyatttokyo.com>, <hyattwashington.com>,
<hyattwichita.com>, <istanbulhyatt.com>, <kansascityhyatt.com>,
<lakelasvegashyatt.com>, <lamangahyatt.com>, <louisvillehyatt.com>,
<macauhyatt.com>, <manchesterhyatt.com>, <minneapolishyatt.com>,
<montrealhyatt.com>, <newportbeachhyatt.com>, <oakbrookhyatt.com>,
<oharehyatt.com>, <parishyatt.com>, <parkchicagohyatt.com>,
<parkphiladelphiahyatt.com>, <philadelphiahyatt.com>,
<princetonhyatt.com>, <restonhyatt.com>, <sanantoniohyatt.com>,
<sanantonioregencyhyatt.com>, <sanctuarycovehyatt.com>,
<sandiegohyatt.com>, <seattlehyatt.com>, <seoulhyatt.com>,
<stlouishyatt.com>, <sydneyhyatt.com>, <tokyohyatt.com>,
<tokyoparkhyatt.com>, <vancouverhyatt.com>, and <waikikihyatt.com>
domain names are
confusingly similar to Complainant’s HYATT mark because Respondent’s domain
names incorporate Complainant’s mark in its entirety, transpose letters, and
add geographic identifiers and the generic top-level domain “.com” to the
mark. The Panel finds that such minor
alterations to Complainant’s registered mark are insufficient to negate the
confusingly similar aspects of Respondent’s domain names pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(i). See
Google Inc. v. Jon G., FA 106084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2002) (finding
<googel.com> to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s GOOGLE mark
and noting that “[t]he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct
mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity, as the result
reflects a very probable typographical error”); see also Sunkist Growers,
Inc. v. S G, D2001-0432 (WIPO May 22, 2001) (finding that the domain names
<sunkistgrowers.org>, <sunkistgrowers.net> and
<sunkistasia.com> are confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered
SUNKIST mark and identical to the complainant’s common law SUNKIST GROWERS
mark); see also Net2phone Inc. v. Netcall SAGL, D2000-0666 (WIPO Sept. 26,
2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <net2phone-europe.com>
is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark because “the combination of a geographic term with the
mark does not prevent a domain name from being found confusingly similar");
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).
Respondent’s <grandhyatt.net>,
<granhyatt.com>, <hongkonggrandhyatt.com>, and <wwwgrandhyatt.com>
domain names are identical or confusingly similar Complainant’s GRAND HYATT
mark because the domain names omit letters and add geographic identifiers, the
letters “www” and the generic top-level domains “.com” and “.net” to
Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds
such changes to Complainant’s registered mark do not negate the confusingly
similar aspects of Respondent’s domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc.,
D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by
only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly
similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive); see
also VeriSign, Inc. v. Tandon, D2000-1216 (WIPO Nov. 16, 2000) (finding
confusing similarity between the complainant’s VERISIGN mark and the
<verisignindia.com> and <verisignindia.net> domain names where the
respondent added the word “India” to the complainant’s mark); see also CMGI,
Inc. v. Reyes, D2000-0572 (WIPO Aug. 8, 2000) (finding that the domain name
<cmgiasia.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s CMGI mark); see
also Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000)
(finding that the respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is
confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA
because it “takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between
the www and the domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the
Internet”); see also Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA
153545 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is
irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly
similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain
name.”).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has
alleged that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain names. Once Complainant makes a prima
facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent
to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(ii). Due to Respondent’s failure
to respond to the Complaint, the Panel assumes that Respondent does not have
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See
G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002)
(holding that, where the complainant has asserted that respondent does not have
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 Clerical Med. Inv.
Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding
that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that
the respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests is sufficient to
shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or
legitimate interest does exist).
Respondent is
using the disputed domain
names to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s websites that
feature links to third-party websites that compete with Complainant’s
business. Respondent’s use of domain
names that are confusingly similar or identical to Complainant’s HYATT and
GRAND HYATT marks to redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s
products to websites that offer similar goods and services in competition with
Complainant’s business is not a use in connection with a bona fide
offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See Computerized Sec. Sys.,
Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s
appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products that compete
with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and
services.”); see also DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v.
BargainDomainNames.com, FA 104580 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2002) (“Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in
connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent
is using the domain name to divert Internet users to <visual.com>, where
services that compete with Complainant are advertised.”).
Moreover,
Respondent has offered no evidence and there is no evidence in the record
suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Thus, Respondent has not established rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO
Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent
was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or
permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store,
FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not
have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp.,
FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate
interests because the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain
name nor was the respondent using the domain name in connection with a
legitimate or fair use).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is
using the disputed domain names, which are confusingly similar or identical to
Complainant’s HYATT and GRAND HYATT marks, to redirect Internet users to
Respondent’s commercial websites that feature goods and services that compete
with Complainant’s business. The Panel
finds that such use constitutes disruption and is evidence of bad faith
registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v. S.
Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the
respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that
competes with the complainant’s business); see
also Puckett v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the
respondent diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in
violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
The Panel infers
that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to
competing websites. Because
Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar or identical to Complainant’s
HYATT and GRAND HYATT marks, Internet users accessing Respondent’s domain names
may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting
websites. Thus, Respondent’s use of the
disputed domain names constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002)
(finding that if the respondent profits from its diversionary use of the
complainant’s mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and the
respondent fails to contest the complaint, it may be concluded that the
respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv)); see also Drs. Foster &
Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad
faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant’s
site to its own website for commercial gain).
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 <haytt.com>, <atlantahyatt.com>, <aucklandhyatt.com>,
<austinhyatt.com>, <bangkokhyatt.com>, <beavercreekhyatt.com>,
<bellevuehyatt.com>, <birminghamhyatt.com>, <bostonhyatt.com>,
<calgaryhyatt.com>, <cancunhyatt.com>, <casablancahyatt.com>,
<charlottehyatt.com>, <cincinnatihyatt.com>, <crowncenterhyatt.com>,
<doradobeachhyatt.com>, <dulleshyatt.com>, <grandcaymanhyatt.com>,
<grandhyatt.net>, <granhyatt.com>, <hongkonggrandhyatt.com>,
<hongkonghyatt.com>, <hyattalbuquerque.com>, <hyattanaheim.com>,
<hyattaustin.com>, <hyattbaltimore.com>, <hyattbangkok.com>,
<hyattbuenosaires.com>, <hyattcincinnati.com>, <hyattcolumbus.com>,
<hyattgreenville.com>, <hyattirvine.com>, <hyattlosangeles.com>,
<hyattlouisville.com>, <hyattminneapolis.com>, <hyattmonterey.com>,
<hyattmontreal.com>, <hyattnewport.com>, <hyattnewyork.com>,
<hyattphiladelphia.com>, <hyattprinceton.com>, <hyattregency.net>,
<hyattsanantonio.com>, <hyattsantiago.com>, <hyattscottsdale.com>,
<hyattseattle.com>, <hyattseoul.com>, <hyattsingapore.com>,
<hyattsuite.com>, <hyattsuites.com>, <hyattsydney.com>,
<hyatttampa.com>, <hyatttokyo.com>, <hyattwashington.com>,
<hyattwichita.com>, <istanbulhyatt.com>, <kansascityhyatt.com>,
<lakelasvegashyatt.com>, <lamangahyatt.com>, <louisvillehyatt.com>,
<macauhyatt.com>, <manchesterhyatt.com>, <minneapolishyatt.com>,
<montrealhyatt.com>, <newportbeachhyatt.com>, <oakbrookhyatt.com>,
<oharehyatt.com>, <parishyatt.com>, <parkchicagohyatt.com>,
<parkphiladelphiahyatt.com>, <philadelphiahyatt.com>,
<princetonhyatt.com>, <restonhyatt.com>, <sanantoniohyatt.com>,
<sanantonioregencyhyatt.com>, <sanctuarycovehyatt.com>,
<sandiegohyatt.com>, <seattlehyatt.com>, <seoulhyatt.com>,
<stlouishyatt.com>, <sydneyhyatt.com>, <tokyohyatt.com>,
<tokyoparkhyatt.com>, <vancouverhyatt.com>, <waikikihyatt.com>,
and <wwwgrandhyatt.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from
Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr.
(Ret.), Panelist
Dated:
October 3, 2005
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page
National Arbitration Forum