Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Marriott International, Inc. , Washington, DC, USA ("Complainant") represented by James R. Davis, Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn. The Respondent is Polanski ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is mariottrewards.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 20, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 20, 2000.

On September 26, 2000, BulkRegister confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name mariottrewards.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 26, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 16, 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@mariottrewards.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 24, 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.

A. Complainant

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a response.

Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks including MARRIOTT and MARRIOTT REWARDS. Complainant has been using its marks in commerce since as early as 1957 and has invested substantial sums of money in the development of its goodwill. Respondent registered the domain name mariottrewards.com on August 18, 2000. Respondent is using the domain name in connection with a commercial site that promotes travel and hotel services.

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.

The domain name incorporates Marriott’s famous MARRIOTT AND MARRIOTT REWARDS trademarks. In addition, the domain name is a common misspelling of Complainant’s famous marks. 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 Bama Rags, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 94380 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2000) (finding that the domain names, <davemathewsband.com> and <davemattewsband.com>, are common misspellings and therefore confusingly similar).

Respondent had 20 days from the date of notification within which to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interest in the domain names at issue. Respondent has failed to provide any evidence on this point. Therefore, this panel concludes that Respondent has no such rights or interests.

Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the domain name with constructive or actual knowledge of Complainant’s famous marks. 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).

Further, Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith by routing internet traffic to commercial web sites that promote third party companies that provide travel and hotel services similar or identical to those provided by Marriott under its MARRIOTT marks. Such use leads consumers to believe that Marriott endorses or is affiliated with Respondent or the companies that advertise at the mariottrewards.com web site. 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). See also State Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent registered the domain name <bigtex.net> to infringe on the Complainant’s good will and attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website).

Respondent’s bad faith is further evidenced by its previous registration of marriotrewards.com. Respondent transferred that domain name to Complainant at Complainant’s request

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 mariottrewards.com be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.