The Complainant is Marriott International, Inc., Washington, DC, USA ("Complainant") represented by James R. Davis, Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn. The Respondent is Vladimir Kyznetsov ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "marriotrewards.com" registered with BulkRegister.

The Panelist James P. Buchele certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as the panelist in this proceeding.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on September 20, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 20, 2000.

On 9/26/00, BulkRegister confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "marriotrewards.com" is registered with BulkRegister and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. BulkRegister has verified that Respondent is bound by the BulkRegister registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On September 26, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 16, 2000 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@marriotrewards.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 October 24, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed James P. Buchele 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 Uniform 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 the Respondent.

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the domain name in question is nearly identical and confusingly similar to its marks. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

B. Respondent

Respondent’s failure to respond to the complaint does not relieve the Complainant of its burden to prove the elements set out in Paragraph 4.a. of the Policy. However, Respondent’s failure to deny any of the Complainant’s averments permits this panel to take Complainant’s averments as true and to draw appropriate inferences.

The Complainant owns multiple marks containing the word MARRIOTT. Two of its marks relevant to this proceeding are MARRIOTT (No. 899900; registered on 09/29/1970) and MARRIOTT REWARDS (No. 2170870; registered on 07/07/1998).

The Complainant operates one of the world’s most well-known and extensive hotel, restaurant, and hospitality companies under its MARRIOTT marks.

On August 2, 2000 the Respondent registered the domain name in question "marriotrewards.com". The Respondent is using the domain name in connection with commercial Internet sites that promote travel and hotel services, among other things, at the website located at <travelnow.com>.

On September 6, 2000, counsel for the Complainant sent a letter to the registrant of the domain name (an entity named Polanski) requesting that use of the domain name cease and that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant. Instead, Polanski transferred ownership of the domain name to the Respondent. Based on the fact that the email addresses for Polanski and the Respondent are identical, the Panel has strong reason to believe that these two entities are aliases for the same individual.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the 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.

The infringing domain name is nearly identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks MARRIOTT and MARRIOTT REWARDS. The Respondent has registered a domain name that deletes the second letter "t" from the Complainant’s marks. This small change does not create a term that is distinct from the Complainant’s mark. See Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that the domain name <geociites.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark). Thus Panel concludes that the domain name in question is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks.

The Respondent cannot contend that he is using the domain name in connection with a fair noncommercial venture because the domain name is linked to a commercial website. It is presumed that the Respondent receives some sort of compensation as a result of such conduct. Therefore, the Panel determines that the Respondent cannot claim to have legitimate interests in the domain name based on Policy ¶ 4.c.(iii).

Similarly, the Respondent cannot claim to be commonly known by the Complainant’s famous mark, Marriott, given the Complainant’s long use of its marks. Policy ¶ 4.c.(ii).

The Respondent cannot claim to be using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because linking a domain name that infringes upon another’s marks to a website that competes with the Complainant is not a "bona fide" use. Policy ¶ 4.c.(i). See America Online, Inc. v. Tencent Communications Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding that use of a site "as a portal to suck surfers into a site sponsored by Tencent seems hardly legitimate").

Based on these arguments and the Respondent’s failure to offer any evidence to the contrary, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See AT&T Corp. v. Domains by Brian Evans, D2000-0790 (WIPO Sept. 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent does not provide any documentation on the existence of this company that might show what the company’s business was, or how the company’s years of existence, if it ever existed, might mesh with Complainant’s trademark claims).

The Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith to route Internet traffic to a commercial website that promotes travel and hotel services. These services are identical to the services offered by the Complainant. In offering similar services located at a domain name that is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s marks, confusion is created as to who sponsors the website and the services located there.

In registering and using the domain name in this manner, the Respondent has violated ICANN Policy ¶ 4.a.(iii). The Respondent has attracted Internet users to a website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the affiliation of the website. Policy ¶ 4.b.(iv). This is evidence of bad faith use and registration. See Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet, Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent attempted to attract customers to its website, <efitnesswholesale.com>, and created confusion by offering similar products for sale as the Complainant).

Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), it is the decision of the panel that the requested relief be granted.

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name, "MARRIOTREWARDS.COM" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.