DECISION

Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. Cablenet Computing Limited

Claim Number: FA0203000106122

PARTIES

Complainant is Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., White Plains, NY (“Complainant”) represented by Teresa C. Tucker, of Grossman, Tucker, Perreault & Pfleger PLLC.  Respondent is Cablenet Computing Limited, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (“Respondent”).

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <whotel.com>, registered with Network Solutions, Inc.

PANEL

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

Hon. Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on March 27, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on .

On March 28, 2002, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <whotel.com> is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

On April 3, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of April 23, 2002 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@whotel.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 May 2, 2002 pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Ralph Yachnin 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 Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “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 Respondent.

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The <whotel.com> domain name is identical to Complainant's W HOTEL mark.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

No Response was received

FINDINGS

Complainant has registered its W HOTEL mark, (Reg. No. 2,294,753) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  The mark was first used in commerce in relation to pillows and beds in 1999.  Complainant also offers hotel and restaurant services under its mark.  Complainant operates a hotel reservation and related travel services website at <whotels.com>.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name <whotel.com> on October 26, 2001.  Respondent is using the disputed domain name in order to offer hotel reservation and related travel services, identical to Complainant’s services.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the 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; 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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established through registration and continuous use that it has rights in the W HOTEL mark.  Furthermore, Respondent’s domain name <whotel.com> is identical to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the entirety of Complainant’s mark and merely deletes the space between “W” and “HOTEL” and adds a generic top-level domain name.  The omission of a space between words or letters does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of identicality.  See Surface Protection Indus., Inc. v. The Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding the domain name <mannbrothers.com> confusingly similar to Complainant’s MANN BROTHERS mark “so as to likely confuse Internet users who may believe they are doing business with Complainant or with an entity whose services are endorsed by, sponsored by, or affiliated with Complainant; hence, satisfying the confusing similarity requirement”).  Furthermore, the addition of a generic top-level domain name is irrelevant when evaluating whether or not a domain name is confusingly similar.  See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant); see also Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, [2002] USCA9 115; 279 F.3d 1135, 1146 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (“Internet users searching for a company’s [w]ebsite . . . assume, as a rule of thumb, that the domain name of a particular company will be the company name [or trademark] followed by ‘.com.’”).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has failed to come forward with a Response and therefore it is presumed that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names).

Furthermore, when Respondent fails to submit a Response, the Panel is permitted to make all inferences in favor of Complainant.  See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009, (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint”).

Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name for a website that offers services similar to Complainant’s services.  It can be inferred that Respondent is attempting to attract Complainant’s customers to its own competing website by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship and affiliation of the website located at <whotel.com>.  This type of use is not considered to be a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) and therefore does not give rise to legitimate rights and interests in the disputed domain name.  See Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s commercial use of the domain name to confuse and divert Internet traffic is not a legitimate use of the domain name); see also N. Coast Med., Inc. v. Allegro Med., FA 95541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2000) (finding no bona fide use where Respondent used the domain name to divert Internet users to its competing website); see also Kosmea Pty Ltd. v. Krpan, D2000-0948 (WIPO Oct. 3, 2000) (finding no rights in the domain name where Respondent has an intention to divert consumers of Complainant’s products to Respondent’s site by using Complainant’s mark).

Respondent is known to the Panel as Cablenet Computing Limited; there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known as <whotel.com> and therefore Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc., FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in domain names because it is not commonly known by Complainant’s marks and Respondent has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use).

Respondent is attempting to benefit commercially by using a domain name that is a common misspelling of Complainant’s own domain name <whotels.com>.  The registration and use of a common misspelling of another’s mark is not considered to be a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name pursuant Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2000-0330 (WIPO June 7, 2000) (finding that fair use does not apply where the domain names are misspellings of Complainant's mark).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name in order to cause a likelihood of confusion and attract Complainant’s customers to its website for commercial gain.  This type of use is considered to be evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent directed Internet users seeking the Complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain); see also America Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent registered and used an infringing domain name to attract users to a website sponsored by Respondent).

Respondent’s registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name to offer services that are virtually identical to Complainant’s services disrupts Complainant’s business and is therefore evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See Lubbock Radio Paging v. Venture Tele-Messaging, FA 96102 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 23, 2000) (concluding that domain names were registered and used in bad faith where Respondent and Complainant were in the same line of business in the same market area); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s business).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be hereby granted.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name <whotel.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist

Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)

Dated: May 8, 2002

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/691.html