Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Ali Aziz; Dotsan / R.S. Potda; NA / NA Dotsan; Nadeem Qadir; Venta / Leonard Bogucki; Tan Kim Fong; Dotsan / R.S. Potdar -; Free Domains Parking / Andrey Vasiliev
Claim Number: FA1210001466233
Complainant is Orbitz Worldwide, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Ali Aziz (“Respondent”), Pakistan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <cheaaptickets.com>, <cheapticckets.com>, <cheapticks.com>, <cheartickets.com>, <orbitxz.com>, <orbitzx.com>, <orbiyz.com>, and <orgitz.com>, registered with Domain.com, LLC.
The domain names at issue are <cheapstickets.com>, <cheaptickests.com>, <cheapticketes.com>, <cheapticketsinc.com>, <cheapticketts.com>, <cheapticktes.com>, <heaptickets.com>, <orbiyz.com>, and <wwwcheaptickets.com>, registered with eNom, Inc.
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 Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 8, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 8, 2012.
On October 10, 2012, Domain.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <cheaaptickets.com>, <cheapticckets.com>, <cheapticks.com>, <cheartickets.com>, <orbitxz.com>, <orbitzx.com>, and <orgitz.com> domain names are registered with Domain.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Domain.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domain.com, LLC 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 October 9, 2012, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <cheapticktes.com> and <orbiyz.com> domain names are registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, Inc. 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 October 8, 2012, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <cheapstickets.com>, <cheaptickests.com>, <cheapticketes.com>, <cheapticketsinc.com>, <cheapticketts.com>, <heaptickets.com>, <orbityz.com>, and <wwwcheaptickets.com> domain names are registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, Inc. 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 October 17, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 6, 2012 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@cheaaptickets.com, postmaster@cheapstickets.com, postmaster@cheapticckets.com, postmaster@cheaptickests.com, postmaster@cheapticketes.com, postmaster@cheapticketsinc.com, postmaster@cheapticketts.com, postmaster@cheapticks.com, postmaster@cheapticktes.com, postmaster@cheartickets.com, postmaster@heaptickets.com, postmaster@orbitxz.com, postmaster@orbityz.com, postmaster@orbitzx.com, postmaster@orbiyz.com, postmaster@orgitz.com, and postmaster@wwwcheaptickets.com. Also on October 17, 2012, 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 November 21, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant made the following contentions:
i. Complainant is a leading online travel company that allows travelers to research, plan, and book trips and travel products and uses its CHEAP TICKETS and ORBITZ marks in connection with these areas.
ii. Complainant has rights in the CHEAP TICKETS mark (Reg. No. 2,021,749 registered Dec. 10, 1996) as a result of having registered it with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
iii. Complainant registered its ORBITZ mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,858,685 filed April 18, 2000; registered June 29, 2004) twice with the USPTO, and thus has rights in the mark.
i. The <cheaaptickets.com>, <cheapstickets.com>, <cheapticckets.com>, <cheaptickests.com>, <cheapticketes.com>, <cheapticketsinc.com>, <cheapticketts.com>, <cheapticks.com>, <cheapticktes.com>, <cheartickets.com>, <heaptickets.com>, and <wwwcheaptickets.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEAP TICKETS mark.
ii. Respondent’s <orbitxz.com>, <orbityz.com>, <orbitzx.com>, <orbiyz.com>, and <orgitz.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ORBITZ mark.
i. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.
ii. Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to Complainant’s and its competitors’ websites.
i. Respondent has developed a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names.
ii. The disputed domain name is disruptive to Complainant’s business.
iii. Respondent is using the disputed domain names in connection with a revenue-generating click-through links website.
iv. Respondent is attempting to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and is therefore presenting typosquatting behavior.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. Complainant is a United States company that is a leading global online travel company that uses innovative technology to enable leisure and business travelers to research, plan and book a broad range of travel products.
2. Complainant has rights in the CHEAP TICKETS mark (Reg. No. 2,021,749 registered Dec. 10, 1996) as a result of having registered it with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Complainant registered its ORBITZ mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,858,685 filed April 18, 2000; registered June 29, 2004) twice with the USPTO, and thus has rights in the ORBITZ mark.
3. Respondent registered the disputed domain names as follows:
a) <cheaaptickets.com> on April 5, 2000;
b) <cheapstickets.com> on April 20, 2002;
c) <cheapticckets.com> on April 20, 2002;
d) <cheaptickests.com> on September 19, 2001;
e) <cheapticketes.com> on October 1, 2001;
f) <cheapticketsinc.com> on October 1, 2001;
g) <cheapticketts.com> on July 12, 2001;
h) <cheapticks.com> on May 2, 2002;
i) <cheapticktes.com> on July 9, 2001;
j) <cheartickets.com> on April 20, 2002;
k) <heaptickets.com> on July 9, 2001;
l) <orbitxz.com> on April 3, 2002;
m) <orbityz.com> on April 3, 2002;
n) <orbitzx.com> on April 3, 2002;
o) <orbiyz.com> on July 25, 2001;
p) <orgitz.com> on April 3, 2002; and
q) <wwwcheaptickets.com> on April 5, 2000.
4.The disputed domain names resolve to websites with links to Complainant and its competitors under headings such as “Airplane—Cheap Tickets” and “Ticket Prices.”
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.”).
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” Complainant contends that various information overlaps between the domain names. For instance, the WHOIS records show that many of the disputed domain names share one of more of the following: IP address, servers, registrar, and e-mail host. In addition, each of the disputed domain names redirects to the same parked website which contains a list of links to Complainant’s website and websites of Complainant’s competitors.
Having examined the evidence, the Panel accepts those submissions and finds that Complainant has presented sufficient evidence that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same entity and the Panel thus chooses to proceed with the instant proceedings.
The first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark. Complainant contends that it has rights in the CHEAP TICKETS and ORBITZ marks. Complainant asserts that it is a leading online travel company that allows travelers to research, plan, and book trips and travel products and uses its CHEAP TICKETS and ORBITZ marks in connection with these areas. Complainant demonstrates that it is the owner of the USPTO registration for the CHEAP TICKETS mark (Reg. No. 2,021,749 registered Dec. 10, 1996). Complainant also registered its ORBITZ mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,858,685 filed April 18, 2000; registered June 29, 2004) twice with the USPTO, and thus claims to have rights in the mark. Panels have found that the registration of a mark, regardless of the location of the parties, is sufficient evidence of having rights in the mark. See Miller Brewing Co. v. Miller Family, FA 104177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 15, 2002) (finding that the complainant had established rights to the MILLER TIME mark through its federal trademark registrations); see also Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the CHEAP TICKETS and ORBITZ marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a) (i).
The second question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEAP TICKETS and ORBITZ marks. In that regard, Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <cheaaptickets.com>, <cheapstickets.com>, <cheapticckets.com>, <cheaptickests.com>, <cheapticketes.com>, <cheapticketsinc.com>, <cheapticketts.com>, <cheapticks.com>, <cheapticktes.com>, <cheartickets.com>, <heaptickets.com>, and <wwwcheaptickets.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEAP TICKETS mark. The Panel finds that the deletion of a space and addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) are irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a) (i) analysis. See Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The Panel also finds that the addition or deletion of one or two letters in a mark fails to distinguish the domain name at issue from the mark within it. See Granarolo S.p.A. v. Dinoia, FA 649854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (finding that the <granarolo.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered G GRANAROLO mark); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Amigos On Line RJ, FA 115041 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 28, 2002) (finding that the <aolrj.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s AOL mark because “…the addition of a string of indiscriminate letters to a famous mark in a second level domain does not differentiate the domain name from the mark.”). The Panel further finds that the addition of the generic term “inc” or the prefix “www” do not differentiate the disputed domain names from the CHEAP TICKETS mark. See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. Mudjackers, D2000-1525 (WIPO Jan. 29, 2001) (finding that the generic term “INC” does not change the confusing similarity); see also Register.com Inc. v. House, FA 167970 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 22, 2003) (finding the prefix “www” followed by the trademark with no period separating them did not distinguish the mark and was confusingly similar). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <cheaaptickets.com>, <cheapstickets.com>, <cheapticckets.com>, <cheaptickests.com>, <cheapticketes.com>, <cheapticketsinc.com>, <cheapticketts.com>, <cheapticks.com>, <cheapticktes.com>, <cheartickets.com>, <heaptickets.com>, and <wwwcheaptickets.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEAP TICKETS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a) (i).
Complainant next alleges that Respondent’s <orbitxz.com>, <orbityz.com>, <orbitzx.com>, <orbiyz.com>, and <orgitz.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ORBITZ mark. In Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000), the panel held that the misspelling of a mark by a single letter increases confusing similarity rather than eliminating it. InTrip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007), the panel held that the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant to a determination of confusing similarity. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <orbitxz.com>, <orbityz.com>, <orbitzx.com>, <orbiyz.com>, and <orgitz.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ORBITZ mark under Policy ¶ 4(a) (i).
Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
It is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a) (ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a) (ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations:
(a) Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s CHEAP TICKETS and ORBITZ marks and to use them in its domain names, making only various spelling and other minor changes;
(b) Respondent has then used the domain names to resolve to websites where Respondent links to Complainant and its competitors under headings such as “Airplane—Cheap Tickets” and “Ticket Prices”;
(c)Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval
of Complainant;
(d) Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Complainant notes that Respondent is not sponsored by or legitimately affiliated with Complainant, and Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s marks in any way. Complainant also asserts that the WHOIS records for the disputed domain names do not contradict Complainant’s assertions. The Panel notes that the WHOIS records for the disputed domain names list “Ali Aziz; Dotsan / R.S. Potda; NA / NA Dotsan; Nadeem Qadir; Venta / Leonard Bogucki; Tan Kim Fong; Dotsan / R.S. Potdar -; Free Domains Parking / Andrey Vasiliev” as the domain name registrants. The panel in Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006), held that the WHOIS record and claims of authorization, or lack thereof, are indicators of whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name. Therefore, the Pane finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c) (ii).
(e) Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names is evidence of a lack of rights and legitimate interests. Complainant provides the Panel with evidence of the disputed domain names’ resolving websites’ contents. The Panel notes that the disputed domain names resolve to websites where Respondent links to Complainant and its competitors under headings such as “Airplane—Cheap Tickets” and “Ticket Prices.” See Complainant’s Exhibit H. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial of fair use pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c) (i) and 4(c) (iii). See Skyhawke Techns., LLC v. Tidewinds Group, Inc., FA 949608 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2007) (“Respondent is using the <skycaddy.com> domain name to display a list of hyperlinks, some of which advertise Complainant and its competitors’ products. The Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and have been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons.
First, Complainant has submitted evidence that Respondent, Ali Aziz; Dotsan / R.S. Potda; NA / NA Dotsan; Nadeem Qadir; Venta / Leonard Bogucki; Tan Kim Fong; Dotsan / R.S. Potdar -; Free Domains Parking / Andrey Vasiliev, has been the respondent in multiple previous UDRP proceedings that resulted in the disputed domain names in those cases being transferred to the respective complainants. See Microsoft Corp. v. Tan Kim Fong a/k/a Dong Wang a/k/a Ali Aziz a/k/a Nadeem Qadur a/k/a Bladimir Boyiko a/k/a NA Dotsan a/k/a Leonard Bogucki a/k/a Venta a/k/a The date in Bulkregister.com’s WHOIS database is p a/k/a Registrate Co. a/k/a Cosmos1, FA 1265720 (Nat. arb. Forum July 14, 2009); see also Ancestry.com Operations Inc. v. Nadeem Qadir a/k/a NA Seocho c/o NA a/k/a Bladimir Boyiko a/k/a Free Domains Parking c/o Andrey Vasiliev, FA 1327838 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 13, 2010). The Panel finds that multiple adverse UDRP proceedings constitute evidence of Respondent’s serial cybersquatting and are evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b) (ii). See Westcoast Contempo Fashions Ltd. v. Manila Indus., Inc., FA 814312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants).
Secondly, Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith and that this is demonstrated by the resulting disruption to Complainant’s business. Complainant contends that Respondent diverts potential customers away from Complainant and instead to Complainant’s competitors’ websites. In Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006), the panel held that, like here, the display of links to competitors of a complainant is evidence of bad faith and disruption. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names disruptively, and thus in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b) (iii).
Thirdly, Complainant argues that Respondent’s bad faith is also evident under Policy ¶ 4(b) (iv). Complainant again notes that the disputed domain names resolve to a website where links are displayed to Complainant and its competitors under headings such as “Cheap Airline Tickets” and “$88+ Cheap Airfare.” See Complainant’s Exhibit H. Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names for the purposes of commercial gain by operating a click-through website. Complainant argues that Respondent is taking advantage of Complainant’s mark to achieve a wrongful competitive advantage. Panels have found bad faith where a respondent uses a complainant’s mark in order to create a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the disputed domain name and then has the domain name resolve to a website displaying commercial links. See AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes). Therefore, the Pane finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b) (iv).
Fourthly, Complainant next alleges that Respondent engaged in typosquatting. Complainant contends that Respondent is attempting to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and is therefore presenting typosquatting behavior. Complainant notes that the <cheaaptickets.com>, <cheapstickets.com>, <cheapticckets.com>, <cheaptickests.com>, <cheapticketes.com>, <cheapticketts.com>, <cheapticks.com>, <cheapticktes.com>, <cheartickets.com>, <heaptickets.com>, <orbitxz.com>, <orbityz.com>, <orbitzx.com>, <orbiyz.com>, and <orgitz.com> domain names are all misspelled by merely one or two added or deleted letters; the <cheapticketsinc.com> domain name is distinct substantively by the addition of the generic term “inc” to the mark; and the <wwwcheaptickets.com> domain name includes the mark along with the prefix “www” without the period following it. The Panel notes that misspelling by one letter or the removal of a period between “www” and the mark in the domain name are classic cases of typosquatting, however the misspelling of a mark by more than one letter and the addition of generic terms generally are considered changes which exceed the realm of typosquatting. Therefore, the Panel finds that the <cheaaptickets.com>, <cheapstickets.com>, <cheapticckets.com>, <cheaptickests.com>, <cheapticketes.com>, <cheapticketts.com>, <cheapticktes.com>, <cheartickets.com>, <heaptickets.com>, <orbitxz.com>, <orbityz.com>, <orbitzx.com>, <orbiyz.com>, <orgitz.com>, and <wwwcheaptickets.com> domain names are typosquatted. The Panel therefore finds, with regards to those domain names that have been typosquatted, that Respondent registered and uses the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Internet Movie Database, Inc. v. Temme, FA 449837 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 24, 2005) (“Respondent's registration of the domain names in dispute constitutes bad faith because the domain names are merely typosquatted versions of the [complainant’s] IMDB mark.).With regard to the domain names <cheapticketsinc.com> and <cheapticks.com> they nevertheless evince an intention by Respondent to misappropriate and trade on Complainant’s trademarks in a inappropriate manner that shows bad faith registration and use.
Fifthly, in addition and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names using the CHEAP TICKETS and ORBITZ marks and in view of the conduct that Respondent engaged in when using them, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <cheaaptickets.com>, <cheapstickets.com>, <cheapticckets.com>, <cheaptickests.com>, <cheapticketes.com>, <cheapticketsinc.com>, <cheapticketts.com>, <cheapticks.com>, <cheapticktes.com>, <cheartickets.com>, <heaptickets.com>, <orbitxz.com>, <orbityz.com>, <orbitzx.com>, <orbiyz.com>, <orgitz.com>, and <wwwcheaptickets.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC
Panelist
Dated: November 23, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page