Expedia, Inc., Orbitz, LLC, Travelscape, LLC, and HomeAway.com, Inc. v. 林 凡 / 雪 林
Claim Number: FA2211002021004
Complainant is Expedia, Inc., Orbitz, LLC, Travelscape, LLC, and HomeAway.com, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David M. Kelly of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is 林 凡 / 雪 林 (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <auexpediatravel.com>, <ausexpediatours.com>, <expediatourism-au.com>, <expediatoursau.com>, <tours-expedia.com>, <ebookers-tours.com>, <ebookers-travelagent.com>, <ebookerstravels.com>, <orbitz-agent.com>, <orbitzau.com>, <orbitz-au.com>, <orbitzaus.com>, <orbitz-aus.com>, <orbitztourism.com>, <orbitz-travelagent.com>, <asia-travelocity.com>, <asia-travelocity.net>, <aus-travelocity.com>, <tours-travelocity.com>, <travelocity-agency.com>, <travelocity-as.com>, <travelocity-asia.com>, <travelocity-au.com>, <travelocityaus.com>, <travelocity-global.com>, <travelocity-in.com>, <travelocity-jp.com>, <travelocity-nz.com>, <travelocity-online.com>, <travelocity-sg.com>, <travelocity-tours.com>, <travelocity-toursm.com>, <travelocitytravel.com>, <travelocity-travel.com>, <travelocity-tw.com>, <travelocity-us.com>, <us-travelocity.com>, <vrboagency.com>, <vrbo-agent.com>, <vrboagents.com>, <vrbotour.com>, <orbitzzaus.top>, registered with Name.Com, 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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 18, 2022; Forum received payment on November 18, 2022.
On Nov 23, 2022; Nov 28, 2022, Name.Com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <auexpediatravel.com>, <ausexpediatours.com>, <expediatourism-au.com>, <expediatoursau.com>, <tours-expedia.com>, <ebookers-tours.com>, <ebookers-travelagent.com>, <ebookerstravels.com>, <orbitz-agent.com>, <orbitzau.com>, <orbitz-au.com>, <orbitzaus.com>, <orbitz-aus.com>, <orbitztourism.com>, <orbitz-travelagent.com>, <asia-travelocity.com>, <asia-travelocity.net>, <aus-travelocity.com>, <tours-travelocity.com>, <travelocity-agency.com>, <travelocity-as.com>, <travelocity-asia.com>, <travelocity-au.com>, <travelocityaus.com>, <travelocity-global.com>, <travelocity-in.com>, <travelocity-jp.com>, <travelocity-nz.com>, <travelocity-online.com>, <travelocity-sg.com>, <travelocity-tours.com>, <travelocity-toursm.com>, <travelocitytravel.com>, <travelocity-travel.com>, <travelocity-tw.com>, <travelocity-us.com>, <us-travelocity.com>, <vrboagency.com>, <vrbo-agent.com>, <vrboagents.com>, <vrbotour.com>, <orbitzzaus.top> domain names are registered with Name.Com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Name.Com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.Com, 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 November 30, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 20, 2022 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@auexpediatravel.com, postmaster@ausexpediatours.com, postmaster@expediatourism-au.com, postmaster@expediatoursau.com, postmaster@tours-expedia.com, postmaster@ebookers-tours.com, postmaster@ebookers-travelagent.com, postmaster@ebookerstravels.com, postmaster@orbitz-agent.com, postmaster@orbitzau.com, postmaster@orbitz-au.com, postmaster@orbitzaus.com, postmaster@orbitz-aus.com, postmaster@orbitztourism.com, postmaster@orbitz-travelagent.com, postmaster@asia-travelocity.com, postmaster@asia-travelocity.net, postmaster@aus-travelocity.com, postmaster@tours-travelocity.com, postmaster@travelocity-agency.com, postmaster@travelocity-as.com, postmaster@travelocity-asia.com, postmaster@travelocity-au.com, postmaster@travelocityaus.com, postmaster@travelocity-global.com, postmaster@travelocity-in.com, postmaster@travelocity-jp.com, postmaster@travelocity-nz.com, postmaster@travelocity-online.com, postmaster@travelocity-sg.com, postmaster@travelocity-tours.com, postmaster@travelocity-toursm.com, postmaster@travelocitytravel.com, postmaster@travelocity-travel.com, postmaster@travelocity-tw.com, postmaster@travelocity-us.com, postmaster@us-travelocity.com, postmaster@vrboagency.com, postmaster@vrbo-agent.com, postmaster@vrboagents.com, postmaster@vrbotour.com, postmaster@orbitzzaus.top. Also on November 30, 2022, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 27, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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.
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.”
The Panel finds that the domain names are under common control as some of the domain names are used or have been used for fraudulent false impersonation and phishing websites that are essentially identical in appearance and/or purpose. For example, the website for the Domain Name No. 20, TRAVELOCITY-AGENCY.COM registered to 雪 林, is essentially identical to the website for the Domain Name No. 28, TRAVELOCITY-NZ.COM registered to 林 凡. The domain names were registered through the same registrar between May and October 2022. This is sufficient to find that the domain names were registered by the same domain name holder. See The Valspar Corporation v. Zhou Zhiliang / zhouzhiliang / Zhiliang Zhou / Eric Chow / Visspa Ltd., FA100800133934 (Forum Sept. 28, 2010); see also BBY Solutions, Inc. v. White Apple / Dev Kumar, FA1805001787251 (Forum June 20, 2018).
Consequently, the Panel will rule on all of the contested domain names, and the two registrants are collectively referred to as “Respondent”.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS
Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that “[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
There are four Complainants in this matter: Expedia, Inc., Orbitz, LLC, Travelscape, LLC, and HomeAway.com, Inc.. These are affiliated companies, with Expedia, Inc. being the parent company of Orbitz, LLC, Travelscape, LLC, and HomeAway.com, Inc..
Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:
It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.
In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark.
The Panel finds that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, and thus it will treat them as a single entity in this proceeding.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is one of the world’s largest travel companies, with localized web sites in more than 70 countries. Complainant’s websites provide business and leisure travelers online tools and information to efficiently research, plan, and book travel including housing and lodging, flights, car rentals, and activities. Complainant features the world’s broadest supply portfolio, encompassing more than 200 travel booking sites in more than 70 countries covering 3,000,000+ properties, 500+ airlines, and 220,000+ activities. Complainant offers a range of housing and lodging options at different types of properties including rentals of homes such as houses, guesthouses, condos, villas, and cabins. Over the years, Complainant’s commercial success has been tremendous: it sells billions of dollars’ worth of products and services each year. For example, Complainant’s revenues were more than $ $8,598,000,000 in 2021, $5,199,000,000 in 2020, and $12,067,000,000 in 2019. Complainant has rights in the following marks through trademark registrations: EXPEDIA in the United States in 1999, EBOOKERS in the European Union in, 2009, ORBITZ in the United States in 2004, TRAVELOCITY in the United States in 1999, and VRBO in the United States in 2004. The marks are well known.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its marks because each domain name incorporates a registered mark in its entirety, merely adding f a descriptive term that relates to Complainant’s services, a geographic term, and/or a hyphen, as well as a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its marks. Respondent is passing off as Complainant through fraudulent websites that purport to offer competing services. Some of the resolving websites display one of Complainant’s marks and logo. Respondent is hosting pay-per-click links on some sites while others are not actively used. Respondent is also using some of the disputed domain names in furtherance of fraud and phishing schemes. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent has registered multiple domain names in this proceeding and causes confusion as to the source of affiliation of the names to attract users for commercial gain. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by passing off as Complainant, advertising competing services, engaging in phishing and fraud, and competing with Complainant for Internet traffic. Respondent fails to actively use some of the disputed domain names and had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its marks. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant provides travel and related services.
Complainant has rights in the following marks through trademark registrations: EXPEDIA in the United States in 1999, EBOOKERS in the European Union in, 2009, ORBITZ in the United States in 2004, TRAVELOCITY in the United States in 1999, and VRBO in the United States in 2004. The marks are well known.
The disputed domain names were registered in 2022.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.
Respondent is passing off as Complainant through fraudulent websites that purport to offer competing services. Some of the resolving websites display one of Complainant’s marks and logo. Respondent is hosting pay-per-click links on some sites while others are not actively used. Respondent is using some of the disputed domain names in furtherance of fraud and phishing schemes.
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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Each of the disputed domain names wholly incorporates one of Complainant’s marks and merely adds a term such as “travel” or “tours”, a geographic term such as “asia,” a hyphen, and a gTLD such as “.com” and “.net.” Such changes are insufficient to defeat a finding of confusing similarity. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”); see also Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as “林 凡 / 雪 林”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses some of the disputed domain names to pass off as or as affiliated with Complainant through fraudulent websites, attracting Internet traffic for commercial benefit and fraud: Complainant provides evidence of multiple resolving websites featuring Complainant’s marks, logos, and other copyrighted content, offering competing services or pay per-click advertisements for services that compete with those of Complainant. Previous Panels have held that use of a domain name to impersonate a complainant and profit from the resulting confusion is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug.21, 2017) (“Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (”Respondent’s use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.”); see also Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Further, Respondent uses some of the disputed domain names falsely to impersonate Complainant to phish for personal information and other fraudulent activities. Use of a disputed domain name for phishing has consistently been found not to constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”); see also Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either 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).). Thus, on this ground also, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Finally, some of the disputed domain names are not actively used. Failure to make active use of a domain name does not satisfy Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“both Domain Names resolve to a web site that shows the words, ‘Not Found, The requested URL / was not found on this server.’ Inactive holding of a domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Thus, on this ground also, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s marks. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent is impersonating Complainant, causing confusion as to the source or affiliation of the disputed domain names, disrupting Complainant’s business through advertising competing services. This is evidence of bad faith disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and a bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) (“Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another.”); see also Transamerica Corporation v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1798316 (Forum Aug. 20, 2018) (“Respondent's use of the domain name to link to competitors of Complainant, presumably generating pay-per-click or referral fees for Respondent, is indicative of bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).”). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).
Further, also as already noted, Respondent uses some of the disputed domain names in furtherance of a phishing scheme and other fraudulent activities. This is evidence of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1506001622862 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent’s apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a ‘phishing’ scheme further established its bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Thus the Panel bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Further, also as already noted, some of the disputed domain names are not being used. According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): “From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.”
In the present case, Complainant’s trademarks are well known. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain names that would not violate the Policy, see Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) (“Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy”); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant’s well-known trademark, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int’l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) (“The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith”).
There has been no response to the Complaint and Respondent used a privacy service, that is, it attempted to conceal its identity. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use can be inferred even though the disputed domain names are not being actively used. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).
Further, Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration by registering and using multiple domain names in bad faith. See Ditec International AB / Global Preservation Systems, LLC v. ADAM FARRAR / HOSTGATOR / FRITS VERGOOSSEN / DITEC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION / Christopher Alison, FA 1763998 (Forum Feb. 1, 2018) (“Here, Respondent registered six domain names that all include Complainant’s DITEC mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s multiple registrations using the DITEC mark indicates bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s marks some of the resolving websites display one of Complainant’s marks and logo. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(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 <auexpediatravel.com>, <ausexpediatours.com>, <expediatourism-au.com>, <expediatoursau.com>, <tours-expedia.com>, <ebookers-tours.com>, <ebookers-travelagent.com>, <ebookerstravels.com>, <orbitz-agent.com>, <orbitzau.com>, <orbitz-au.com>, <orbitzaus.com>, <orbitz-aus.com>, <orbitztourism.com>, <orbitz-travelagent.com>, <asia-travelocity.com>, <asia-travelocity.net>, <aus-travelocity.com>, <tours-travelocity.com>, <travelocity-agency.com>, <travelocity-as.com>, <travelocity-asia.com>, <travelocity-au.com>, <travelocityaus.com>, <travelocity-global.com>, <travelocity-in.com>, <travelocity-jp.com>, <travelocity-nz.com>, <travelocity-online.com>, <travelocity-sg.com>, <travelocity-tours.com>, <travelocity-toursm.com>, <travelocitytravel.com>, <travelocity-travel.com>, <travelocity-tw.com>, <travelocity-us.com>, <us-travelocity.com>, <vrboagency.com>, <vrbo-agent.com>, <vrboagents.com>, <vrbotour.com>, <orbitzzaus.top> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: December 27, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page