Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

TRAVELOCITY.COM LP
COMPLAINANT,

vs.

TEN TRAVEL
RESPONDENT.

DECISION
Forum File No.: FA#94632

The above entitled matter came on for an administrative hearing on April 20, 2000, before the undersigned on the Complaint of Travelocity.com LP, hereafter “Complainant”, against Ten Travel, hereafter “Respondent”.  Complainant was represented upon the written submitted record by Mark E. Miller, Fliesles, Dubb, Meyer & Lovejoy, LLP, San Francisco, California.  No response was filed by Ten Travel.  Upon the written submitted record, the following DECISION is made pursuant to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Numbers and Names (“ICANN”).  The Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”) and the Rules and supplemental rules for Domain Dispute Resolution (the “Rules”).

                                                      PROCEDURAL FINDINGS

• Domain Name: prevuetravel.com

• Domain Name Registrar: Network Solutions, Inc.

• Domain Name Registrant: Ten Travel

• Date of Domain Name Registration: August 26, 1998

• Date of Complaint Filed: April 17, 2000

• Date of Commencement of Administrative Proceeding in Accordance with Rule 2(a) and Rule4(c): April 24, 2000

• Due date for a Response:    May 14, 2000

• Original Supplemental Responses Requested

After reviewing the Complaint, and determining it to be in administrative compliance, the National Arbitration Forum (The Forum) forwarded the Complaint to both Respondent and Network Solutions, Inc., in compliance with Rule 2(a), and the administrative proceeding was commenced pursuant to Rule 4(c).  In compliance with Rule 4(d), the Forum notified Network Solutions, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and the Complainant that the administrative proceeding had commenced.  Respondent did not submit a response to the Forum within twenty (20) days pursuant to Rule 5(a). 

However, Respondent did request an extension and did submit a garbeled response, not in compliance with the Rules and not verified as required by the Rules.  Supplemental responses were requested.  The Complainant supplemented; Respondent did not.

On August 26, 1998, Respondent registered the domain name “prevuetravel” with Network Solutions, the entity that is the Registrar of the domain name.  Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is the Registrant for the domain name “prevuetravel.com”. Further, by registering its domain name with Network Solutions, Respondent agreed to resolve any dispute regarding its domain name through ICANN’s Policy and Rules.

                                                           FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Complainant, Travelocity.com,LP, owns the registered trademark

“Preview Travel” the mark was registered on July 7, 1998, and has been used in commerce since July 1996.  Travelocity also owns the domain name “previewtravel.com”. Travelocity markets travel and travel related information and services, including reservations.  Respondent, registrant of the disputed domain name “prevuetravel.com,” also alleges that it is in the same business.

2. The Respondent’s non-conforming answer disputes the Complainant’s

assertions.  In the Complaint, Complainant asserts that the similarity of the domain names creates a “overwhelming likelihood” of confusion.  Further, in its submissions, the Complainant has conclusively demonstrated that the owner of the domain name “prevuetravel.com” has attempted to sell that domain to both the Complainant and its competitors.  The Complainant’s other submissions include evidence of its registration of its trademark and correspondence between Complainant and Respondent.

3. This decision is rendered under the ICANN policy.  At paragraph 4(a), of the

the Complainant must prove that (i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trade or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect to the domain name; and (iii) that the domain name was registered in bad faith.

4. Clearly, this domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark held by

Complainant and its own domain name, and paragraph 4(a)(i) is satisfied.

5. Paragraph 4(a)(ii) is applicable.  At one time, Respondent may

have had legitimate interest in the domain name, but at the time, Respondent was not utilizing the domain name for any business purpose other than to solicit purchasers of the domain name, which the knew  itself to be very similar to the mark and domain name  held by Complainant.  Respondent now uses the name for purposes of marketing and travel related services, but, apparently after the Complaint was submitted, placed a disclaimer on the site.

6. Finally, Complainant has demonstrated registration and use in bad faith.

Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) there is clearly an intent to attract for a commercial gain Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion.   Paragraph 4(b)(i) also applies, since the Respondent attempted to sell the domain name to a possible competitor.

                                                                CONCLUSIONS

7.         Given the totality of the circumstances, the Complainant has met its burden

of proof and the domain name should be transferred as requested by Complainant.

DECISION

Based upon the above findings and conclusions, and pursuant to Rule 4(i), it is decided as follows:

THE UNDERSIGNED DIRECTS THAT THE DOMAIN NAME “prevuetravel.com” REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT BE TRANSFERRED TO Complainant.

Dated: May 22, 2000, by R. Glen Ayers, Jr. (formerly United States Bankruptcy Judge), Arbitrator