Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C., C.G.
Holdings, Inc. v. Lost in Space, SA
Claim Number: FA0205000113281
PARTIES
Complainant
is Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C., C.G.
Holdings, Inc., New York, NY, USA (“Complainant”) represented by Ariana G. Voigt, of McDermott, Will & Emery.
Respondent is Lost in Space,
Palma, SPAIN (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <thehudsonhotel.com>
and <asiadecuba.com>, registered with Intercosmos Media Group.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that she has acted
independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no
known
conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks
Johnson sits as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on May 7, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the Complaint
on May 9, 2002.
On
May 7, 2002, Intercosmos Media Group confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain names <thehudsonhotel.com> and <asiadecuba.com> are registered with Intercosmos Media Group
and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Intercosmos Media Group has verified that
Respondent is bound by the Intercosmos Media Group 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
May 9, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding
(the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of May 29, 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@thehudsonhotel.com and postmaster@asiadecuba.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
June 13, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon.
Carolyn Marks Johnson 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant makes the following
allegations in this proceeding:
The
<thehudsonhotel.com> and <asiadecuba.com> domain
names are identical to Complainant's THE HUDSON HOTEL and ASIA DE CUBA
marks. Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad
faith.
B.
Respondent did not file a Response.
FINDINGS
Complainant is the owner of several
world-famous hotels throughout the United States. Complainant bought The Henry Hudson Hotel of New York in 1998 and
reopened the hotel as THE HUDSON HOTEL in 2000. Complainant has invested a substantial sum of money and resources
in order to create a large amount of goodwill behind the THE HUDSON
HOTEL mark.
Complainant is the owner of a line of
restaurants that are known under the mark ASIA DE CUBA. The first ASIA DE CUBA opened in 1997. The ASIA DE CUBA restaurants are featured in
Complainant’s hotels as well as in other independent locations. Complainant has registered the ASIA DE CUBA
mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as Registration Number
2,346,145
on October 11, 2000.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
names on November 7, 2001 and January 18, 2002. Respondent is using the <asiadecuba.com> and <thehudsonhotel.com>
in connection with an escort service.
Complainant sent cease and desist letters to the Respondent just as it
did to the previous owner of the disputed domain names. The domain name <thehudsonhotel.com>,
once owned by Telmax Management, was transferred to Respondent after Telmax
Management received Complainant’s cease and desist
letters.
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 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 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to
a trademark or service mark in which Complainant
has rights; and
(2)
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.
Complainant has established that it has
common law rights to THE HUDSON HOTEL mark through continuous use. Complainant also established that it has
rights to ASIA DE CUBA through registration with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office.
The domain name registered by Respondent,
<thehudsonhotel.com>, is identical to Complainant’s THE HUDSON
HOTEL mark because it incorporates the entirety of Complainant’s mark and
merely omits
the spaces between words and adds the generic top-level domain
name “.com.” The omission of spaces and
the addition of a top-level domain name do not create a distinct mark capable
of overcoming a claim of
identical or confusingly similar. See Interstellar Starship Services Ltd. v. EPIX, Inc., 983 F.Supp.
1331, 1335 (D.Or. 1997) (<epix.com> "is the same mark" as
EPIX);
see also 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).
Respondent’s <asiadecuba.com>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s ASIA DE CUBA mark because it
incorporates the entirety of Complainant’s registered
mark and merely omits the
spaces in-between the words and adds a generic top-level domain name. As is the case above, the omission of spaces
and the addition of a generic top-level domain name do not create a distinct
mark. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000)
(finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does
not affect the domain
name for the purpose of determining whether it is
identical or confusingly similar); see also The Fed’n of Gay Games, Inc. v.
Hodgson & Scanlon,
D2000-0432 (WIPO June 28, 2000) (finding that the domain name
<gaygames.com> is identical to Complainant's registered trademark
GAY
GAMES).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent did not file a Response and
therefore the Panel may presume that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the
disputed domain names.
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 two domain names that
are identical to Complainant’s two marks in order to attract Internet users
interested in
Complainant’s businesses to Respondent’s adult-orientated escort
service website. The use of domain
names identical to Complainant’s marks in relation to an adult orientated
website is not a bona fide offering of
goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(c)(iii). See MatchNet plc. v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11,
2000) (finding that it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services to use
a domain name for commercial
gain by attracting Internet users to third party
sites offering sexually explicit and pornographic material where such use is
calculated
to mislead consumers and to tarnish the Complainant’s mark); see
also Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d 110, 114 (D.Mass 2002) (finding that,
because the Respondent's sole purpose in selecting the domain names was to
cause confusion with the
Complainant's website and marks, it's use of the names
was not in connection with the offering of goods or services or any other
fair
use).
The Panel knows Respondent only as Lost
in Space. No evidence on the record
suggests and Respondent has not come forward to establish evidence that
Respondent is commonly known as
THE HUDSON HOTEL and ASIA DE CUBA or <thehudsonhotel.com>
and <asiadecuba.com>.
Therefore, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup Inc. v.
Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that
Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known
by the mark); see also 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Respondent received possession of the
<thehudsonhotel.com> domain name from an entity that had actual
notice of Complainant’s rights in the disputed domain name and the Panel may
therefore
infer that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in
the THE HUDSON HOTEL mark when it registered <thehudsonhotel.com>. Therefore, Respondent registered the <thehudsonhotel.com>
domain name in bad faith. See
Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, [2002] USCA9 115; 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb.
11, 2002) (finding that "[ w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he
knows to be similar to another, one can
infer an intent to confuse").
Furthermore, based on Complainant’s
registration of ASIA DE CUBA on the Principal Register of the United States
Patent and Trademark
Office it can be inferred that Respondent had constructive
notice of Complainant’s ASIA DE CUBA mark when it registered <asiadecuba.com>. Therefore, Respondent’s registration of the
<asiadecuba.com> domain name was in bad faith. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr.
17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive
knowledge of a commonly
known mark at the time of registration).
Respondent has used
both disputed domain names in connection with a commercial website featuring an
escort service. It can be inferred that
Respondent is using Complainant’s goodwill for its own commercial gain by
creating a likelihood of confusion
between Complainant and Respondent. This is evidence of bad faith use pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See
State Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com,
FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent
registered the domain name <bigtex.net> to infringe
on Complainant’s
goodwill and attract Internet users to Respondent’s website); see also 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).
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 names <thehudsonhotel.com>
and <asiadecuba.com> be transferred from Respondent to
Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks
Johnson, Panelist
Dated: June 27, 2002.
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/967.html