DECISION

Wyndham IP Corporation v. Kenion Corp.

Claim Number:  FA0405000268427

PARTIES

Complainant is Wyndham IP Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Kay Lyn Schwartz, of Gardere Wynne Sewell, LLP, 1601 Elm Street, Suite 3000, Dallas, TX 75201.  Respondent is Kenion Corp. (“Respondent”), 10213 Cove Lake Drive, Orlando, FL 32836.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <wyndhamtimeshare.com>, registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc.

PANEL

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.

James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on May 6, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 10, 2004.

On May 6, 2004, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <wyndhamtimeshare.com> is registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Go Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On May 13, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 2, 2004 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@wyndhamtimeshare.com by e-mail.

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On June 14, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., 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."  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.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

1. Respondent’s <wyndhamtimeshare.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WYNDHAM mark.

2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wyndhamtimeshare.com> domain name.

3. Respondent registered and used the <wyndhamtimeshare.com> domain name in bad faith.

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

Complainant, Wyndham IP Corporation, offers upscale and luxury hotel and resort accommodations through proprietary lodging brands and a management services division.

Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations and applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the WYNDHAM and related marks (Ser. No. 74/244,942 filed February 10, 1992). 

Complainant has been in the hotel business since at least 1986 and employs approximately 25,000 people worldwide.  Complainant’s corporate office is based in Dallas.  Complainant owns, leases, manages and franchises hotels and resorts in the United States, Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Europe.

Complainant’s main website is operated at the <wyndham.com> domain name.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 27, 2004.  Respondent has parked the domain name, which points to the registrar’s website services.

DISCUSSION

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."

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.

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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has provided extrinsic proof that it owns several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office that incorporate the term WYNDHAM.  Moreover, Complainant has submitted evidence of pending trademark applications for the WYNDHAM mark in relation to hotel services.  See SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Masood, D2000-0131 (WIPO Apr. 13, 2000) (finding that the Rules do not require that Complainant's trademark or service mark be registered by a government authority or agency for such rights to exist. Rights in the mark can be established by pending trademark applications); see also British Broadcasting Corp. v. Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2000) (noting that the Policy “does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademarks and service marks in the context of abusive registration of domain names” and applying the Policy to “unregistered trademarks and service marks”).

The domain name registered by Respondent, <wyndhamtimeshare.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WYNDHAM mark because the domain name incorporates a combination of Complainant’s mark and a generic or descriptive term, “time-share,” related to Complainant’s services.  The mere addition of a generic or descriptive term that describes a piece of Complainant’s business does not negate the confusing similarity of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001) (“the fact that a domain name incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identical or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks”); see also Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd.  v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of Complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that “[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word . . . nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant avers that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.  Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, it is assumed that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  The burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests once Complainant establishes a prima facie case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertion in this regard.”); see also Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be deemed true).

Respondent has passively held the disputed domain name since the time of registration.  The Panel finds that this use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent failed to submit a Response to the Complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question); see also Melbourne IT Ltd. v. Stafford, D2000-1167 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where there is no proof that Respondent made preparations to use the domain name or one like it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services before notice of the domain name dispute, the domain name did not resolve to a website, and Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name).

Nothing in the record, including the WHOIS domain name registration information, suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent deliberately registered a domain name, <wyndhamtimeshare.com>, that contains in its entirety Complainant’s well-known mark.  Respondent has failed to market any bona fide goods or services, other than the registrar’s website services.  Respondent’s passive holding of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark evidences bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that Respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith); see also Body Shop Int’l PLC v. CPIC NET, D2000-1214 (Nov. 26, 2000) (finding bad faith where (1) Respondent failed to use the domain name and (2) it is clear that Respondent registered the domain name as an opportunistic attempt to gain from the goodwill of Complainant).

Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, a domain name that incorporates Complainant’s well-known mark in its entirety and deviates only with the addition of a generic or descriptive term, suggests that Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights in the WYNDHAM mark.  Furthermore, the generic or descriptive term incorporated in the domain name describes one of the services Complainant offers.  Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent most likely chose the <wyndhamtimeshare.com> domain name based on the distinctive and well-known qualities of Complainant’s mark.  See E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Oak Inv. Group, D2000-1213 (WIPO Nov. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where (1) Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s famous GALLO marks and (2) Respondent made no use of the domain name <winegallo.com>); see also Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18. 2000) (finding that Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s EXXON mark given the worldwide prominence of the mark and thus Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wyndhamtimeshare.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist

Dated:  June 28, 2004

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/685.html