Источник информации:
официальный сайт ВОИС
Для удобства навигации:
Перейти в начало каталога
Дела по доменам общего пользования
Дела по национальным доменам
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE
PANEL
DECISION
Six Contentinents Hotels, Inc. v. Frequent Flyer Depot
Case No. D2003-0550
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Six Contentinents Hotels, Inc, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America, represented by Needle & Rosenberg, PC, United States of America.
The Respondent is Frequent Flyer Depot, Austin, Texas, United States of America.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names <holidayinnpriorityclub.com> and <holidayinnrewards.com> are registered with Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 11, 2003. On July 14, 2003, the Center transmitted by email to Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain names at issue. On July 14, 2003, Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 17, 2003. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 6, 2003. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 7, 2003.
The Center appointed Andrew Mansfield as the sole panelist in this matter on August 15, 2003. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
Complainant, itself, or through an affiliate, is the franchisor of the well-known Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn Express, and Crowne Plaza hotel brands. In addition to franchised hotels, Complainant owns and operates numerous Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn Express, and Crowne Plaza hotels worldwide. An affiliate of Complainant also owns, manages, and franchises the Intercontinental hotel brand globally.
Complainant owns one thousand, two hundred thirty-seven (1,237) registrations for its numerous Holiday Inn Hotels service marks in one hundred eighty-two (182) countries throughout the world. Complainant owns the following eighteen (18) registrations for its marks incorporating Holiday Inn in the United States alone (listed by United States Registration Number): 0592539; 0592541; 0708521; 0864359; 1059639; 1243330; 1261925; 1275560; 1281008; 1281951; 1301022; 1555275; 1651851; 1806858; 2034107; 2207318; 2370049; and 2640061. The words "HOLIDAY INN" are components of each referenced mark. Fourteen of the above-listed registrations are now incontestable pursuant to United States law. Complainant also has a registered United States trademark in "PRIORITY CLUB," under which it provides the service of linking to affiliate sites.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant claims that it has used the mark "HOLIDAY INN" since 1952, and has spent more than $1 billion promoting the mark. There are over 2,900 Holiday Inn establishments in over 70 countries. Complainant claims that Holiday Inn is the most-widely-used hotel chain and is also located in the most countries around the world.
Complainant has registered and maintains over 1,100 domain names to promote and/or protect its marks. Complainant has provided information and registration services at "www.holiday-inn.com" since 1995. That and related websites run by Complainant receive tremendous web traffic.
Complainant alleges that both of the domain names subject to this proceeding are identical or confusingly similar to its marks. The Domain Name <holidayinnrewards.com> includes Complainant’s famous HOLIDAY INN mark with the additional, descriptive term "rewards." The Domain Name <holidayinnpriorityclub.com> is identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, incorporating two of Complainant’s registered marks in their entireties, HOLIDAY INN and PRIORITY CLUB.
Complainant also alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the words "holiday inn" or "priority club." Respondent does not and is not preparing to offer goods or services under those marks. Respondent does not operate a free-speech, comment or criticism website.
The fact
that Respondent
brokers
Holiday
Inn Priority
Club points
via its
web site
does not
give Respondent
any rights
or legitimate
interest
to use the
famous HOLIDAY
INN and
PRIORITY
CLUB marks
in domain
names. Respondent
relies on
Nokia
Corporation
v. Nick
Holmes t/a
Etype Media,
WIPO
Case No.
D2002-0001,
in which
the Panel
decided
that
"A licensee or a dealer, agent or distributor of products of the trademark owner or of compatible products does not per se have a right to a domain name which includes that trademark."
Complainant also claims that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s famous Holiday Inn and Priority Club marks in its Domain Names is not a "nominative" or "referential" use of the marks, because internet users are likely to mistakenly believe that Respondent’s web sites are sponsored by, affiliated with, or otherwise endorsed by Complainant, when they are not. As one Panelist stated:
Respondent’s use of the mark in the disputed domain names suggests to Internet users that Complainant sponsors or endorses Respondent’s hotel reservation services. . . . Respondent may be able to offer Complainant’s hotel rooms on its website as part of its range of hotel room offerings, but it cannot use Complainant’s mark as its domain name, that is, as the entryway to its business. The latter use suggests ownership, sponsorship or authorization by Complainant.
Six
Continents
Hotels,
Inc. v.
Georgetown,
Inc.,
WIPO
Case No.
D2003-0214.
While Complainant
admits that
a reseller
or distributor
may use
the mark
of a manufacturer
or supplier
in a domain
name, Complainant
relies on
Oki Data
Americas,
Inc. v.
ASD, Inc.,
WIPO
Case No.
D2001-0903,
for
the proposition
that a reseller
or distributor
may only
do so when
it exclusively
sells the
manufacturer’s
or service
provider’s
products
or services
at that
website.
That is
not the
case in
this matter.
Finally, Complainant avers that the registration and use of the domain names by Respondent is in bad faith. Complainant’s terms and conditions for Priority Club points specifically prohibit the transfer that Respondent’s website appears to authorize. Complainant believes that Internet users will mistakenly believe that Respondent’s website is authorized by or affiliated with Complainant and that the incorporation of Complainant’s marks by Respondent was done to engender exactly such confusion.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Although Respondent did not provide any reply, the Panel will examine Complainant’s allegations in light of the Policy and other applicable rules or laws. It is beyond dispute that Complainant has a mark that is termed "famous" under United States trademark law and that many of the variations on that mark are incontestable. The Panel finds that Complainant has marks in "HOLIDAY INN" and "PRIORITY CLUB."
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
One of the two subject domain names (<holidayinnpriorityclub.com>) incorporates two of Complainant’s marks and the other domain name (<holidayinnrewards.com>) incorporates Complainant’s mark and a generic phrase. Both domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. The domain name <holidayinnpriorityclub.com> is identical to Complainant’s marks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent "brokers" Holiday Inn Priority Club points at the domain names. Complainant seeks to rule out any argument that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the domain names because it offers services, albeit against the terms of the program, related to Complainant’s marks.
The Panel
finds that
even if
Respondent
were a licensee,
dealer,
agent or
reseller
of Holiday
Inn Priority
Club Points,
it would
not have
a right
to use the
marks "Holiday
Inn"
or "Priority
Club"
in its domain
names. See
Nokia Corporation
v Nokia
Ringtones
& Logos
Hotline
WIPO
Case No.
D2001-1101,
(October
18, 2001)
in which
the administrative
panel stated:
"The domain
name <worldnokia.com>
has been
used by
Respondent
to offer
logos, ringtones,
software
and other
products
and services
to owners
of mobile
phones.
Respondent
has stated
that the
products
offered
by Respondent
are only
compatible
with the
Nokia mobile
phone and
that it
was for
this reason
that the
name "worldnokia"
was used.
As was held
by the Panel
in, inter
alia, (Motorola
Inc. v
NewGate
Internet
Inc,
WIPO
Case No.
D2000-0079;
Stanley
Works and
Stanley
Logistics
Inc. v Camp
Creek Co,
WIPO
Case No.
D2000-0113;
Mikimoto
(America)
Co. v Asanti
Jewellers
Ltd,
Case No.
AF-0126;
R.T.
Quaife Engineering,
Ltd. and
Autotech
Sport Tuning
Corporation
d/b/a Quaife
America
v. Bill
Luton,
WIPO
Case No.
D2000-1201)
a licensee
or a dealer,
agent or
distributor
of products
of the trademark
owner or
of compatible
products
does not
per se have
a right
to a domain
name which
includes
that trademark.
It follows
that Respondent
in this
case would
only have
a right
to the domain
name <worldnokia.com>
if Complainant
had specifically
granted
that right.
Respondent
has not
contested
that Complainant
has not
licensed
or otherwise
permitted
Respondent
to use the
trademark
NOKIA. The
mere fact
that Respondent
sells logos
and ringtones
compatible
with NOKIA
mobile phones
is not sufficient
for Respondent
to claim
a legitimate
interest.
There are
circumstances
under which
this general
proposition
is not true.
For example,
a proceeding
under the
UDRP is
not the
proper forum
to decide
complicated
contested
factual
issues such
as whether
Complainant
provided
Respondent
with permission
or consent
to use its
marks. Respondent
might meet
all of the
elements
set forth
in Oki
Data Americas,
Inc. v.
ASD, Inc.,
WIPO
Case No.
D2001-0903,
to establish
that it
has made
a bona fide
prior use
of the mark
as a reseller
or distributor
pursuant
to Paragraph
4(c)(i)
of the Policy.
Such issues
are not
before this
Panel because
Respondent
failed to
present
a Reply.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) provides that the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent have registered or have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the Respondent have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the Respondent have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the Respondent have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his/her/its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his/her/its website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its domain names by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its domain names and its brokerage service.
The Panel
looks to
The Sportsman’s
Guide, Inc.
v. Modern
Limited,
Cayman Islands,
WIPO
Case No.
D2003-0305,
for guidance
on evidence
of bad faith
in such
circumstances.
The Panel
finds that
Respondent:
1) had constructive knowledge of Complainant’s long standing marks at the moment of registration of the disputed domain names; and
2) used the disputed domain names for commercial gain.
The Panel has no doubt that Respondent knew of Complainant’s "HOLIDAY INN" and "PRIORITY CLUB" when it registered the disputed domain names. Respondent holds itself out as a broker for points earned in the Holiday Inn Priority Club program.
Respondent’s website indicates that it charges significant "brokerage" fees for the transfer of miles and points between users of services. It also sells advertising on its website. Respondent used the disputed domain names for commercial gain.
The Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain names be transferred to the Complainant.
Andrew Mansfield
Sole Panelist
Dated: September 2, 2003