i.

By virtue of its federal trademark and/or service mark registrations, Complainant is the owner of the Complainant's Mark(s). See, e.g., United Way of America v. Alex Zingaus, NAF Claim No. FA0707001036202 ("Panels have long recognized Complainant's registration of a mark with a trademark authority is sufficient to confer rights in the mark pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i)"). As in other cases, it is also important to note that it is irrelevant for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i) whether Complainant registered the mark in the country where Respondent operates or resides. See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that a mark be registered in the country in which a respondent operates, it being sufficient that a complainant can demonstrate rights in a mark in some jurisdiction).

ii.

iii.

The Disputed Domain Name WWWTRIPADVISOR.COM is confusingly similar to Complainant's Mark and main website, TRIPADVISOR.COM, by simply omitting the punctuation after the "www" before the Complainant's mark. Previous Panels have found this to be an example of typosquatting. In this instance, the Panel should find the changes made to Complainant's mark sufficient to mitigate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy 4(a)(i), which also includes the addition of the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com." See 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 Register.com Inc. v. House, FA 167970 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 22, 2003) (finding that adding the prefix "www" to a domain name without separating it from the mark by a period does not negate a finding of confusing similarity).

When comparing the Disputed Domain Name(s) to the Complainant's Mark(s), the relevant comparison to be made is between only the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Name(s) and the Complainant's Mark(s). See Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCready, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 (finding that the top-level domain, such as ".net" or ".com", does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., NAF Claim No. FA0304000153545 ("[t]he 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.")

iv.

The Disputed Domain Name(s) is/are confusingly similar to Complainant's Mark(s) because it differs by only a single character from Complainant's Mark(s), or because it differs by only the juxtaposition of two characters when compared to Complainant's Mark(s). For clarification, the Disputed Domain Name(s) contains either:

[a.] the addition of one extra character, or...
[b.] the removal of one character, or...
[c.] one character which is incorrect, or...
[d.] two juxtaposed characters

as compared to Complainant's Mark(s).

v.

The Disputed Domain Name(s) is/are, simply put, a classic example of "typosquatting". The practice of typosquatting is designed to take advantage of Internet users' typographical errors, which means the names must be confusingly similar by design. See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0441 (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); Caterpillar Inc. v. Center for Ban on Drugs, NAF Claim No. FA0603000661437 ("the omission of a single letter from Complainant's mark does not adequately distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the mark"); and Victoria's Secret v. Zuccarini, NAF Claim No. FA0010000095762 (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's marks).

i.

Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name(s). Upon information and belief, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name(s), it had no trademark or intellectual property rights in the Domain Name(s). See Policy, ¶4(c)(ii). Where, as here, "the WHOIS information suggests Respondent is known as" an entity other than the trademark associated with Complainant, and Complainant has not "licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to register domain names incorporating Complainant's... mark," a Panel should find that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. See United Way of America v. Alex Zingaus, NAF Claim No. FA0707001036202. See also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"); See also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that when a respondent was not known by a mark it did not have rights in a domain name incorporating that mark).

ii.

Respondent is not sponsored by or legitimately affiliated with Complainant in any way.

iii.

Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant's Mark in a domain name. See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020

(WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding that a respondent had no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name where it was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission to use the mark).

iv.

A "Cease and Desist" letter was sent to the Respondent. The letter informed the Respondent that it was infringing on Complainant's IP rights and allowed the Respondent the opportunity to respond if they have any IP rights. The Respondent was provided with the information of the Complainant's trademark(s), hence showing proof that the Complainant has rights to the brand(s). To date, no reply has been received from Respondent. 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, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000("In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint."). Also in WIPO case ACCOR v. Pham Manh Ha, Case No. D2007-1855, the panel found that the evidentiary burden therefore shifts to the Respondent to show by concrete evidence that it does have rights or legitimate interests in that name.

v.

vi.

vii.

Respondent has ignored Complainant's attempts to resolve the dispute outside of this administrative proceeding. Complainant notes that if the owner of the Disputed Domain Name(s) fails to respond to this Complaint, it is presumed that the owner has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name(s). See Mattel, Inc. v. Rave Club Berlin, FA106115 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2002), citing 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). Further, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) states that when "the complainant has made a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to show by providing concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interest in the domain name at issue."

Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name TEIPADVISOR.COM to redirect Internet users to a website operated by Complainant's competitor CHEAPOAIR.COM. Presumably, Respondent receives consideration from those firms for driving traffic to them. As such, Respondent is not using the domain name(s) to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services as allowed under Policy 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as allowed under Policy; 4(c)(iii). Furthermore, Respondent is causing confusion amongst consumers and tarnishing Complainant's good name in the marketplace. See Clear Channel Communications, Inc. v. Beaty Enters., FA 135008 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2003) finding that Respondent, as a competitor of Complainant, had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that utilized Complainant's mark for its competing website; see also Winmark Corp. d/b/a Play It Again Sports v. In The Zone a/k/a Giant Sports Factory, FA 128652 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2002) finding that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that used Complainant's mark to redirect Internet users to a competitor's website.

Respondent is using (some or all of) the Disputed Domain Name(s) to redirect unsuspecting Internet users to a website featuring generic links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant's business. Presumably, Respondent receives pay-per-click fees from, or is otherwise compensated by, these linked websites. As such, Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name(s) to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services as allowed under Policy; 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as allowed under Policy; 4(c)(iii). See 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. 24HourNames.com-Quality Domains For Sale, FA 187429 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 26, 2003) (holding that Respondent's use of the 24hrsfitness.comgt, 24-hourfitness.com.gt and 24hoursfitness.com.gt, domain names to redirect Internet users to a website featuring advertisements and links to Complainant's competitors could not be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also Computer Doctor Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Computer Doctor, FA 95396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the respondent's website, which is blank but for links to other websites, is not a legitimate use of the domain names).

viii.

Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name(s) for 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), because the Disputed Domain Name(s) redirects Internet users to Complainant's own website in violation of Complainant's affiliate program, a violation of the affiliate agreement between Complainant and Respondent. It has previously been held that this use of a disputed domain name is not protected under Policy 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii). See, e.g., Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Domhold Co., FA 135011 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (finding that registering a domain name which differs by one letter from the complainant's commercial website, and using that domain name to redirect Internet consumers to the complainant's website as a part of the complainant's affiliates program is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a noncommercial use of the domain name); see also Deluxe Corp. v. Dallas Internet, FA 105216 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (finding the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy 4(a)(ii) where it used the domain name <deluxeform.com>; to redirect users to the complainant's <deluxeforms.com> domain name and to receive a commission from the complainant through its affiliate program). Therefore, the Panel should hold that Respondent's use of the TRIPADVISON.COM domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant's own website is not a use protected under Policy 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii), and that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy 4(a)(ii).

ix.

The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name(s) was July 31, 2007 (TRILPADVISOR.COM), which is significantly after Complainant's first use in commerce, June 30, 2000, as specified in their relevant registration with the USPTO.  It is also significantly after Complainant had registered its rights in the TripAdvisor and owl design trademark, which registration issued in June 2003, with a date of First Use in Commerce in November 2000.

x.

The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name(s) was July 31, 2007 (TRILPADVISOR.COM), which is significantly after Complainant's registration of TRIPADVISOR.COM on March 23, 1999.

i.

Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name(s) TRIPADVISON.COM to redirect Internet users to Complainant's own website through Complainant's affiliate program, which is in direct violation of the affiliate agreement which governs Respondent's relationship as an affiliate of Complainant. As a member of Complainant's affiliate program, Respondent was aware of Complainant's rights in Complainant's Mark(s) when registering the Disputed Domain Name(s). By registering confusingly similar domain names while a member of this affiliate program, Respondent has attempted to opportunistically benefit from its registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name(s) at Complainant's expense. Respondent's registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name(s) while a member of Complainant's affiliate program constitutes additional evidence of bad faith under Policy 4(a)(iii). See Cricket Communc'ns, Inc. v. Oliver, FA 954005 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent registered domain names containing the complainant's mark after enrolling in the complainant's affiliate program); see also Deluxe Corp. v. Dallas Internet, FA 105216 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (finding the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv) by redirecting its users to the complainant's domain name, thus receiving a commission from the complainant through its affiliate program).

ii.

iii.

iv.

As a member of Complainant’s affiliate program, it is obvious that Respondent must have had actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the TRIPADVISOR mark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name(s). It has previously been held that a respondent demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii) by registering an infringing domain name with actual notice of the complainant’s rights in the appropriated mark. See Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was “well-aware” of the complainant’s YAHOO! mark at the time of registration). See also Advance Auto Parts, Inc. d/b/a Advance Auto Innovations, LLC v. Dragan Platic / Poste restante, FA1537469. It is clear that Respondent’s actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the appropriated mark is further evidence that the <TRIPADVISON.COM> domain name was registered and used in bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii).

Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name(s), <TEIPADVISOR.COM> to redirect Internet users to a website selling competing services for commercial gain is evidence of bad faith.  The Disputed Domain Name <TEIPADVISOR.COM> resolves to <cheapoair.COM>, a website that sells goods that compete with Complainant’s products. The Panel should find that the Respondent created a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks through the registration and use of the disputed domain names identified above and commercially benefits from that confusion, and the Panel has found that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv).  See MathForum.com, LLC v. Weiguang Huang, D2000-0743 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv) where the respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark and the domain name was used to host a commercial website that offered similar services offered by the complainant under its mark).  

Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name(s) to redirect Internet users to a website featuring products/ services in direct competition with Complainant. This constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and qualifies as bad faith registration and use under 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 EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding that the minor degree of variation from the complainant's marks suggests that the respondent, the complainant’s competitor, registered the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the complainant's business). The Panel should presume that Respondent benefits commercially when consumers purchase products from the website that resolves from the Disputed Domain Name(s). Respondent is therefore capitalizing on the likelihood that consumers will confuse the source of the disputed domain name as being affiliated with Complainant. This is further evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Shafir, FA 196119 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 10, 2003) (“As Respondent is using the domain name at issue in direct competition with Complainant, and giving the impression of being affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant, this circumstance qualifies as bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”); see also Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or  affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”).

v.

Respondent's bad faith is further shown by the Respondent using (some or all of) the Disputed Domain Name(s) website in connection with generating revenue as a "click through" website by using the Complainant's registered trademark(s) and providing links to the services and products offered by the Complainant to take advantage of Complainant's well known mark to achieve a wrongful competitive advantage and commercially gain. In WIPO Decision D2008-1470, AIDA Cruises German Branch of Societá di Crociere Mercurio S.r.l., v. Caribbean Online International Ltd. / BelgiumDomains "the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name for the purposes of commercial gain by offering links to other companies' websites related to cruises and travels, in the form of a "clickthrough" website. In similar cases, many prior panel decisions have recognised [sic] that the registration of domain names to be used in a "click-through" website has to be considered as an evidence of bad faith (see, e.g. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation., WIPO Case No. D2007-0440; Early Times Distillers Company v. IP Admin / DNAV ASSOCS, WIPO Case No. D2007-1812; HBOS Plc v. Whois Protection, WIPO Case No. D2007-1605)".

vi.

To further stress the above, Respondent's setting up of a "click through" website for which it likely receives revenue for each misdirected Internet user obviously demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. The Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name(s) in bad faith pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv) by using the Disputed Domain Name(s) to attract and mislead consumers for its own profit. See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) ("Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent's own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv)."); see also Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant's mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant). See also Meadowbrook, L.L.C. d/b/a The Land of Nod v. Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited, Claim Number: FA1112001419361 and Charlotte Russe Merchandising, Inc. v. Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft / Domain Admin, Claim Number: FA1204001439309, where the same behavior of bad faith was demonstrated and  found by the panel, pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv).

vii.

In addition to the above, the Respondent's advertised pay-per-click links displayed on the resolving websites promotes products that compete with Complainant. These links therefore divert potential customers away from Complainant to third-party websites, which disrupts Complainant's business. The Panel should find that this effort to divert consumers and disrupt Complainant's business is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy 4(b)(iii). See Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Tex. Int'l Prop. Assoc., FA 914854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (holding that where the respondent's website featured hyperlinks to competing websites and included a link to the complainant's website, the respondent's use of the <redeemaamiles.com> domain name constituted disruption under Policy 4(b)(iii)).

vii.

Respondent has caused the website(s) reachable by (some or all of) the Disputed Domain Name(s) to display Complainant's Mark(s) spelled correctly (even though the domain name(s) is a misspelled version of the same mark(s)). This serves as further evidence of bad faith intent because it removes any doubt as to whether or not the misspelling was intentionally designed to improperly capitalize on Complainant's famous Mark(s).

viii.

Respondent has caused the websites reachable by (some or all of) the Disputed Domain Name(s) to display content and/or keywords directly related to Complainant's business. This serves as further evidence of bad faith intent because it removes any doubt as to whether or not the misspelling was intentionally designed to improperly capitalize on Complainant's famous Mark and its related business.

ix.

Respondent's use of apparently falsified and/or incomplete WHOIS contact information demonstrates a desire to avoid being held accountable, which serves as further evidence of bad faith intent. See, e.g., Time Warner Inc. v. AOLMEMBERS.COM et al., NAF Claim No. FA0701000881337 ("fictitious or false WHOIS information about both the registrant's name and physical address... raises the presumption of bad faith registration and use").