Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Hilton Hospitality, Inc., and Hilton
HHonors Worldwide, LLC v. XC2
Claim
Number: FA0310000200662
Complainants are
Hilton Hospitality, Inc., and Hilton
HHonors Worldwide, LLC, 755 Crossover Lane, Memphis, TN, 38117 USA (
“Complainants”) represented by Stephanie
Mills. Respondent is XC2, 2/F
Yally Industrial Building, 6 Yip Fat Street, Wong Chuk Hang, Hong Kong, China
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <hiltonhonors.com>, registered with Dotster.
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.
Louis
E. Condon as Panelist.
Complainants
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on October 3, 2003; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on October 6, 2003.
On
October 6, 2003, Dotster confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <hiltonhonors.com>
is registered with Dotster and that Respondent is the current registrant of the
name. Dotster has verified that Respondent is bound
by the Dotster 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
October 9, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
October 29, 2003 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@hiltonhonors.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
November 6, 2003, pursuant to Complainants’ request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Louis
E. Condon 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.
Complainants
request that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainants.
A. Complainants make the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <hiltonhonors.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainants’ HILTON HHONORS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <hiltonhonors.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <hiltonhonors.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant Hilton
Hospitality, Inc. is the owner of the HILTON mark, and has obtained many
registrations for the mark on the Principal
Register of the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office (e.gs. U.S. Reg. Nos. 2,478,190; 845,172; and
2,649,645). This Complainant has used the HILTON mark since 1925 in connection
with its hospitality
services.
Complainant
Hilton HHonors Worldwide, LLC, is licensed by Complainant to use the HILTON
mark as part of the HILTON HHONORS composite
mark. Hilton HHonors Worldwide,
LLC has obtained many registrations for the HHONORS mark (e.gs. U.S.
Reg. Nos. 1,837,199; 2,552,828; and 2,680,272). The HILTON HHONORS mark is used
in connection with a program where members of
the program can earn points based
on their spending at most of the hotel properties operated and franchised by
Hilton Hospitality,
Inc. Complainants Hilton Hospitality, Inc. and Hilton
HHonors Worldwide, LLC (hereinafter “Complainant”) also operate a website at
the <hiltonhhonors.com> domain name.
Respondent, XC2,
registered the <hiltonhonors.com> domain name June 16, 2003,
without license or authorization to use Complainant’s HILTON HHONORS composite
mark for any purpose. Respondent
uses the disputed domain name to host a
webpage that provides listings for hotels that compete with Complainant, as
well as links
to third-party websites offering adult-oriented material.
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 rights in the HILTON HHONORS mark through registration of the
HILTON and HHONORS marks on the Principal
Register of the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office, as well as through widespread use of the HILTON HONORS mark
in commerce. See Koninklijke KPN
N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the
Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which
Respondent
operates. It is sufficient
that Complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
Respondent’s <hiltonhonors.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
HILTON HHONORS mark. But for the deletion of the second “h” in the HHONORS mark
and the elimination of the space between the words of Complainant’s mark, the
disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s
mark. See Hannover
Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002)
(finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are
impermissible
in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or
‘.net’ is required in domain names”); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18,
2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a
Respondent does not
create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain
name confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that the <hiltonhonors.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HILTON HHONORS mark
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Given the lack
of license relationship between Respondent and Complainant, and the fact that
Respondent appears to be known as “XC2,”
the Panel finds that Respondnet is not
commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See
RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known
by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"); see
also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v.
Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or
legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and
never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked
name).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the
<hiltonhonors.com> domain
name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent
relies upon the fame and goodwill surrounding the HILTON HHONORS mark to
attract Internet users to its domain name. Once
there, Internet users are
subjected to a series of hyperlinks which lead to websites sponsored by
competitors of Complainant. Other
hyperlinks direct Internet users to adult-oriented
content. In both circumstances, Complainant’s HILTON HHONORS mark is being
diluted
and tarnished by Respondent, presumably for commercial gain via
referral fees for each hyperlink that Internet users click on. Thus,
Respondent
is using a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks for commercial
gain, evidence that the disputed domain name
was registered and used in bad
faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Out Island
Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (stating that
“[s]ince the disputed domain names contain entire versions of Complainant’s
marks and are used for something completely unrelated to their descriptive
quality, a consumer searching for Complainant would become
confused as to
Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting search engine website” in holding
that the domain names were registered
and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also CCA Indus.,
Inc. v. Dailey, D2000-0148 (WIPO Apr. 26, 2000) (“[T]his association with a
pornographic web site can itself constitute bad faith”).
The Panel thus
finds that Respondent registered and used the <hiltonhonors.com> domain name in bad faith, and that Policy ¶
4(a)(iii) is satisfied.
Complainant
having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the
Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <hiltonhonors.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant Hilton HHonors Worldwide, LLC.
Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated:
November 17, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/1054.html