DECISION

Radisson Hotels International, Inc. v. Amjad Kausar

Claim Number:  FA0401000224961

PARTIES

Complainant is Radisson Hotels International, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Edward H. Fallon, Carlson Parkway, P.O. Box 59159, Minneapolis, MN 55459-8249. Respondent is Amjad Kausar (“Respondent”), P.O. Box 5706, Karachi, Pakistan 74000.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <radissson.com>, registered with Enom, Inc.

PANEL

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

Sandra Franklin as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on January 8, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 9, 2004.

On January 13, 2004, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <radissson.com> is registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, 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 January 14, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 3, 2004 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@radissson.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 February 9, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra Franklin 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 makes the following assertions:

1. Respondent’s <radissson.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RADISSON mark.

2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <radissson.com> domain name.

3. Respondent registered and used the <radissson.com> domain name in bad faith.

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

Complainant, Radisson Hotels International, Inc., has used the RADISSON mark in commerce since 1909 in connection with hotel services. Complainant, with its franchisees, owns and operates RADISSON branded hotels in countries around the world, and has obtained or applied for over 150 registrations for the RADISSON mark worldwide (e.g. U.S. Reg. No. 920,862, registered on September 21, 1971).

Respondent, Amjad Kausar, registered the <radissson.com> domain name on August 11, 2001. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to the <vipfares.com> domain name, which sells travel packages and 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 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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established rights in the RADISSON mark through registration of the mark worldwide, as well as through widespread use of the mark in commerce around the globe for nearly a century.

Respondent’s <radissson.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RADISSON mark. The domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark but for the addition of an additional letter “s” within the RADISSON mark. See Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass’n v. InterActive Communications, Inc., D2000-0788 (WIPO Aug. 28, 2000) finding that a domain name which merely adds the letter “s” to Complainant’s mark is sufficiently similar to the mark to cause a likelihood of confusion among the users of Complainant’s services and those who were to view a web site provided by Respondent accessed through the contested domain name; 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 <radissson.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RADISSON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent is using the <radissson.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to the <vipfares.com> domain name. The Panel infers that Respondent’s decision to redirect the disputed domain name to this travel-oriented website was in order to earn referral fees or commissions from the operators of the <vipfares.com> domain name. Respondent’s attempt to benefit commercially from its misappropriation of Complainant’s RADISSON mark, especially in light of Respondent’s use of a domain name that competes with Complainant’s services under the RADISSON mark, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial use of the domain name, rendering Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii) inapplicable in this dispute. See Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a financial services website, which competed with Complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services; see also Ticketmaster Corp. v. DiscoverNet, Inc., D2001-0252 (WIPO Apr. 9, 2001) finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent generated commercial gain by intentionally and misleadingly diverting users away from Complainant's site to a competing website.

As Respondent is merely using the domain name to redirect Internet users to the <vipfares.com> domain name, and only appears to be “commonly known by” the name Amjad Kausar (as listed in the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain name) the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply in this dispute either. See Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply; see also 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.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <radissson.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered and used the <radissson.com> domain name in bad faith. Through its unauthorized use of the RADISSON mark in the disputed domain name, Respondent is directing Internet users to a website that offers travel packages in competition with the services offered by Complainant under the RADISSON mark. Thus, Respondent’s decision to register a domain name that mimics the RADISSON mark results in the dilution of Complainant’s famous mark, while confusing Internet users as to the source or sponsorship of the <vipfares.com> domain name. Additionally, Respondent is using the RADISSON mark for its own commercial gain, through referral fees from the <vipfares.com> domain name. This is evidence that the disputed domain name was both registered and used in bad faith. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) finding that the “domain names are so obviously connected with the Complainants that the use or registration by anyone other than Complainants suggests “opportunistic bad faith”; see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) finding bad faith registration and use where it is “inconceivable that the respondent could make any active use of the disputed domain names without creating a false impression of association with the Complainant”.

The Panel thus finds that Respondent registered and used the <radissson.com> domain name in bad faith, and that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.

DECISION

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

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

Sandra Franklin, Panelist

Dated:  February 23, 2004

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/168.html