Gorstew Limited, and Unique Vacations, Inc
v.
Honeymoon Holidays & Cruises
[Indexed as: Gorstew Limited, and Unique Vacations, Inc v.Honeymoon Holidays & Cruises]
National Arbitration Forum
Administrative Panel Decision
Forum File FA0005000094942
Commenced: 2 June 2000
Judgment: 3 July 2000
Presiding Panelist: Hon. James A. Carmody
Domain name - Domain name dispute resolution policy - U.S Trademark - Confusingly similar - Competing services - Bad faith registration - Bad faith use Worldwide representative Travel agent.
Complainant (Gorstew) has permitted their trademark SANDALS to be associated with a chain of all?inclusive hotels, which do business under the name Sandals Resorts. Complainant (Unique) serves as the worldwide representative for Sandals Resorts. In connection with its marketing services, Complainant (Unique) has registered the domain names, sandalsresorts.com and sandals.com. Respondent, who is a travel agent who sells Sandals Resort vacation packages along with competing services, registered the domain name, sandalstravel.com.
Held, Name Transferred to Complainant
Respondents website is confusingly similar to the Complainants mark. By infringing upon the Complainants marks, Respondent attempted to create confusion as to the source of the Complainants sponsorship, affiliation and/or endorsement.
Further, the Respondents failure to respond to the Complainants accusations leads one to believe that the Respondent knows that its website is misleading and is intentionally diverting business from the Complainant. The Respondent is using a portion of the Complainants registered and well-known mark to offer competing services. Based on Respondents experience in the travel business, Respondent knew that confusion between the two companies would result.
It then seems clear that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain. The actions of the Respondent have disrupted the Complainants business and deprived it of customers. The Panel accordingly finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name and has demonstrated bad faith in both the registration and use of the mark.
Policies referred to
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, adopted August 26, 1999
Cases referred to
Hewlett-Packard Company v. Full System, FA94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum, May
22, 2000)
Marriott International v. Café au lait, FA93670 (Nat. Arb. Forum,
Mar. 13, 2000)
Cunard Line Ltd. v. Champion Travel, Inc., FA92053 (Nat. Arb. Forum,
Mar. 7, 2000)
Travel Services, Inc. v. Tour Coop of Puerto Rico, FA92524 (Nat. Arb.
Forum, Feb. 29, 2000)
Panel Decision referred to
Carmody, Panelist:-
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME(s)
The domain name at issue is "SANDALSTRAVEL.COM, registered with
Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI).
PANELIST(s) Hon. James A. Carmody, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
("The
Forum") electronically on May 31, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy
of the
Complaint on May 30, 2000.
On June 1, 2000, NSI confirmed by e?mail to The Forum that the domain
name(s)
SANDALSTRAVEL.COM is registered with NSI and that the Respondent
is
the current registrant of the name. NSI has verified that Respondent
is bound by
the Network Solutions Service Agreement Version 4.0 and has thereby
agreed to
resolve domain?name disputes brought by third parties in accordance
with
ICANNs UDRP.
On June 2, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting
a deadline
of June 22, 2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint,
was transmitted to Respondent via email, post and fax, and to all entities
and
persons listed on Respondents registration as technical, administrative
and billing
contacts by email.
On June 22, 2000, 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 26, 2000, pursuant to Complainants request to have the dispute
decided
by a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed the Hon. James A. Carmody,
as
Panelist(s).
Having reviewed the communications records in the case file, the Administrative
Panel (the "Panel") finds that The Forum has discharged its responsibility
under
Paragraph 2(a) of the Uniform 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 Forums Supplemental Rules and any rules
and principles of law that the panel deems applicable, without the
benefit of any
Response from the Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the
Respondent to the Complainant Unique.
PARTIES CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered a domain
name that
is confusingly similar to its trademark registered for and in use by
the Complainant.
Further, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights
or legitimate
interests to the domain name, and that the respondent has registered
and is using
the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent submitted no response in this matter and, accordingly,
all
reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the Complaint will
be accepted as
true.
FINDINGS
The Complainant (Gorstew) is the owner of the trademark SANDALS (filed
December 18, 1989; registered September 18, 1990; No. 1,614,295) for
use in
connection with hotel reservation services, sightseeing tours, and
motor vehicle
transportation. The Complainant (Gorstew) also owns the trademark
SANDALS
(filed February 6, 1996; registered April 22, 1997; No. 2,054,532)
in connection
with merchandise associated with hotel and hospitality services (including
luggage,
passport cases, clothing, umbrellas, etc.). The Complainant (Gorstew)
has also
recently registered the trademark SANDALS VACATIONS (filed March 16,
2000, No. 76001512) for use in all?inclusive vacation packages. The
Complainant
(Gorstew) has permitted their trademark to be associated with a chain
of
all?inclusive hotels, which do business under the name Sandals Resorts.
Each
hotel has a separate Sandals name (ex: Sandals Inn, Sandals Antigua,
Sandals
Montego Bay, etc.) that is advertised throughout the world.
The Complainant (Unique) is a Florida corporation, which serves as the
worldwide
representative for Sandals Resorts and provides marketing and reservation
services. In connection with its marketing services, Unique has
registered the
following domain names: <sandalsresorts.com> and <sandals.com>.
These two
websites are the only authorized sites by the Complainant.
The Respondent registered the domain name SANDALSTRAVEL.COM on
April 12, 1998. The Respondent is a travel agent which sells
Sandals Resort
vacation packages.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy (Policy)
directs that the complainant must prove each of the following three
elements in
order to demonstrate claims that a domain name should be cancelled
or transferred:
(1) 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
(2) the 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.
The Complainant has offered numerous exhibits in support of its claims,
whereas
the Respondent has submitted no response in the matter. The Respondents
failure
to dispute the allegations of the Complainant permits the inference
that the use of
the Complaints mark in connection with the Respondents website is
confusingly
similar to the Complainants mark. Further, the Respondents
failure to respond
leads one to believe that the Respondents knows that its website is
misleading and
intentionally diverting business from the Complainant. See Hewlett?Packard
Company v. Full System, FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000).
Applying the Policy to the issue in this case furthers these inferences.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Respondents mark is confusingly similar to the Complainants mark.
The
domain name in question incorporates the Complainants SANDALS marks.
By
infringing upon the Complainants marks, the Respondent is attempting
to create
confusion as to the source of the Complainants sponsorship, affiliation,
and/or
endorsement. See Marriott Intl, Inc. v. Café au lait,
FA 93670 (Nat. Arb.
Forum March 13, 2000) (holding that the Respondents domain name
<Marriott?Hotel.com> was confusingly similar to Marriotts marks
and domain
name <Marriott.com>). The Respondents business is not synonymous
with the
Complainants services; however, the Respondent would like the public
to believe
that the two companies are affiliated.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent does not assert any rights or legitimate interests to
the domain
name in question.
The name does not reflect a name that the Respondent is commonly known
by.
Policy 4(c)(ii). Rather, the Respondent is using a portion
of the Complainants
registered and well?known mark to offer competing services.
The Panel finds that the Respondent is not using the domain name in
connection
with a bona fide offering of goods and services nor is making a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the site. Policy 4(c)(i),
(iii). Instead, the
Respondent seeks to profit from its registration of said domain name
by offering
competing services and trading upon the image associated with the Sandals
name.
Policy 4(c)(i), (iii). See Cunard Line Ltd. v. Champion
Travel, Inc., FA
92053 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 7, 2000) (finding that the Respondent had
no rights
or legitimate interests in the domain name <cunardcruise.com>).
For these
reasons, the panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in
the domain name.
Bad Faith
The Respondent does not deny that its actions were taken in bad faith.
The Respondent registered the domain name in question to intentionally
attract
Internet users to its website for its commercial gain. Policy
4(b)(iv). Based on
the Respondents experience in the travel business, the Respondent
knew that
confusion between the two companies would result. When Internet
users click on
the Respondents site, they cannot know that they are not on the official
Sandals
website. Were Respondents website inactive, the consumer
might conclude that
the various Sandals Resorts do not have an Internet presence.
In either situation,
the Complainant would lose customers, and business would be disrupted
as a result
of the Respondents infringing website. Policy 4(b)(iii).
See Travel Services,
Inc. v. Tour Coop of Puerto Rico, FA 92524 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb 29,
2000).
Based on the preceding argument, the Panel finds that the Respondent
registered
and used the domain name in bad faith.
DECISION
Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule
4(a), it is
the decision of the panelist that the requested relief be granted.
Accordingly, for all
of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name,
SANDALSTRAVEL.COM be transferred from the Respondent to Complainant
Unique.
James A. Carmody, Judge (Ret.)
Dated: July 3, 2000
|