Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

Gorstew Limited, Jamaica, and Unique Vacations, Inc., Miami, FL, USA
COMPLAINANT,

vs.

Honeymoon Holidays & Cruises, Coral Springs, FL, USA
RESPONDENT.

DECISION
Claim Number: FA0005000094942

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 ICANN’s 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 Respondent’s 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 Complainant’s 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 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.

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 Respondent’s failure to dispute the allegations of the Complainant permits the inference that the use of the Complaint’s mark in connection with the Respondent’s website is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.  Further, the Respondent’s failure to respond leads one to believe that the Respondent’s 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 Respondent’s mark is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.  The domain name in question incorporates the Complainant’s SANDALS marks.  By infringing upon the Complainant’s marks, the Respondent is attempting to create confusion as to the source of the Complainant’s sponsorship, affiliation, and/or endorsement.  See Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. Café au lait, FA 93670 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 13, 2000) (holding that the Respondent’s domain name <Marriott-Hotel.com> was confusingly similar to Marriott’s marks and domain name <Marriott.com>).  The Respondent’s business is not synonymous with the Complainant’s 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 Complainant’s 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 Respondent’s experience in the travel business, the Respondent knew that confusion between the two companies would result.  When Internet users click on the Respondent’s site, they cannot know that they are not on the official “Sandals” website.  Were Respondent’s 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 Respondent’s 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