Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. ANDREW JACKSON / CRUISESHIP
Claim Number: FA1804001783111
Complainant is Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Brett A. August of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is ANDREW JACKSON / CRUISESHIP (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <princesscruise.online> (“the Domain Name”), registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 23, 2018; the Forum received payment on April 23, 2018.
On April 25, 2018, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <princesscruise.online> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 April 25, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 15, 2018 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@princesscruise.online. Also on April 25, 2018, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 18, 2018 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" 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 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, the trade marks PRINCESS and PRINCESS CRUISES for cruise ship services in the USA, registered in 1991 with first use recorded as 1965.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PRINCESS or PRINCESS CRUISES marks except for making ‘cruises’ singular and adding the gTLD neither of which avoid confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy.
Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, is not connected in any way to Complainant and is not authorised to use Complainant’s trade marks. The Domain Name registered in 2018 has been used for a fake American Airlines site set up for phishing purposes which cannot be bona fide use or a legitimate non commercial fair use. Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
Phishing constitutes bad faith registration and use. It is obvious from the use made of the Domain Name that the Respondent knew about Complainant and its business at the time of registration and has used the Domain Name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, the trade marks PRINCESS and PRINCESS CRUISES for cruise ship services in the USA registered in 1991 with first use recorded as 1965.
The Domain Name registered in 2018 has been used for a fake American Airlines site for phishing purposes.
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(f), 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 (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.”).
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of, inter alia, the Complainant's PRINCESS mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the USA for services relating to cruises and has been used since 1965), the generic term ‘cruises’ which relates to Complainant’s business and the gTLD “.online.” Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that the respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underling mark held by the complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term ‘cruises’ to Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy, especially as Complainant is in the cruise business.
The gTLD “.online” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the PRINCESS mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the <redhat.org> domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest Respondent is, in fact. commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sep. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The web site to which the Domain Name redirects purports to be a fake American Airlines site which appears to have been set up for phishing purposes. It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with Complainant. As such it is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate or fair non commercial use. See Amazon Technologies Inc v Suzen Khan/Nancy Jain/Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug 16, 2017) (finding that the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in a domain name with which it conducted a phishing scheme).
As such the Panelist finds that Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by Complainant, as it purports to offer travel services under a Domain Name containing the Complainant’s PRINCESS mark combined with the type of travel activity offered by Complainant, the ‘cruise’. The contents of the Domain Name make it more likely than not that Respondent was aware of Complainant and Complainant’s business at the time of registration. Accordingly, the Panel holds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s web site likely to disrupt the business of Complainant. See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to advertise car dealerships that competed with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of those competing dealerships and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).
In addition, phishing has also been held to be bad faith registration and use in itself. See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015).
As such, the Panelist believes that Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paras. 4(b)(iv) and 4(b)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <princesscruise.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page