Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Marriott International, Inc. , Washington, DC, USA ("Complainant") represented by James R. Davis. The Respondent is Momm Amed Ia ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is wwwmarriott.com registered with Bulkregister.

The Panelist James P. Buchele certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as the panelist in this proceeding.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on September 11, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 11, 2000.

On September 19, 2000, Bulkregister confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name wwwmarriott.com is registered with Bulkregister and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Bulkregister has verified that Respondent is bound by the Bulkregister registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On September 19, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 9, 2000 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@wwwmarriott.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 October 18, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed James P. Buchele 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 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 Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from the Respondent.

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

B. Respondent

Respondent did not respond to the complaint.

Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for its MARRIOTT marks. Since as early as 1957, Complainant has been using, and continues to use, the MARRIOTT mark in interstate commerce. Marriott operates an extensive hotel, restaurant and hospitality company. Since 1993, Complainant has used the URL www.marriott.com to promote its products and services on the internet.

On August 2, 2000, Respondent registered the domain name wwwmarriott.com. Respondent is using the domain name in connection with a commercial web site that promotes and advertises products and services, several of which are identical to the services offered by Complainant, including travel and lodging.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(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.

This domain name, wwwmarriott.com is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARRIOTT marks and is virtually identical to Complainant’s own domain name, www.marriott.com, which it has used since 1993. See Marriott Int’l v. Café au lait, FA 93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum March 13, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s domain name <marriott-hotel.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark "Marriott"). See also Bank of American Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark "Bank of America" because it "takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the Internet").

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy informs a Respondent that, without limitation, he may demonstrate that he has rights to and a legitimate interest in a domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii), as follows:

Respondent has made no such showing.

Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. At the time of registration, Complainant had been using its MARRIOTT marks to identify its goods and services for over 40 years. In addition, at the time of Respondent’s registration, Complainant’s internet presence had been in existence for over 6 years, at www.marriott.com. These facts impute constructive, if not actual knowledge of Complainant’s marks to Respondent. Therefore, Respondent’s registration of the wwwmarriott.com domain name, in light of this knowledge, is evidence of registration in bad faith. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum, April 17, 2000) (evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of commonly known mark at the time of registration).

In addition to being registered in bad faith, the domain name is being used in bad faith. Complainant’s evidence indicates that Respondent is using the domain name to route traffic to a commercial web site that promotes services, some of which are identical to services offered by Complainant, including travel and lodging. See Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet, Inc., D2000-0127 WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent attempted to attract customers to its website, <efitnesswholesale.com>, and created confusion by offering similar products for sale as the Complainant).

Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy, it is the decision of this panel that the requested relief be granted.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the domain name wwwmarriott.com be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.