Complainant is Travelscape, LLC of Bellevue, Washington, United States of America ("United States" or "U.S."), represented by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, United States.
Respondent is Isaac Goldstein of Hong Kong, China.
The disputed domain name <traveosity.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name") is registered with DropCatch.com 573 LLC (the "Registrar").
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 24, 2016. On February 25, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On the same date, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing Respondent's contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 1, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 21, 2016. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on March 22, 2016.
The Center appointed Isabel Davies as the sole panelist in this matter on April 6, 2016. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
In 2015 Complainant changed its name to Travelscape, LLC. Complainant's predecessors in title include, among others, Travelocity, Inc.
Complainant, together with its predecessors-in-interest, are referred to collectively as "Complainant". Complainant has used the mark TRAVELOCITY since 1996 and has an extensive range of registrations for the mark TRAVELOCITY around the world dating back to 1999.
Complainant is owned by Expedia, Inc., one of the world's largest travel companies.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on January 24, 2016.
i. The Disputed Domain Name Is Confusingly Similar To Complainant's Marks
Complainant states that it is the record owner, itself or by assignment from its predecessors-in-interest, of the TRAVELOCITY marks that are central to this proceeding, including U.S. trademark registrations. It states that its predecessors-in-interest include, among others, Travelocity, Inc.; Travelocity.com LP; Terrapin, Inc.; and TSGL Holding, Inc. In 2015, the corporate name of Complainant was changed to Travelscape, LLC. Complainant states that, unless the context indicates otherwise, the term "Travelocity" is used to refer collectively to Complainant; Travelocity, Inc.; Travelocity.com LP; Terrapin, Inc.; TSGL Holding, Inc.; and Complainant's other predecessors-in-interest; and/or Complainant's corporate affiliates who use the TRAVELOCITY trademarks under authority from Complainant.
Complainant states that it bases its Complaint on its (1) use, registration, and ownership of the trademark TRAVELOCITY as well as TRAVELOCITY-formative marks; and (2) ownership and use of the domain name <travelocity.com>.
Complainant states that Travelocity, founded in 1996, is a leading provider of consumer-direct travel services for the leisure and business traveler. Complainant markets and distributes travel-related products and services directly to individuals using its mark TRAVELOCITY and its various brand websites and contact centers and is one of the most recognized online travel brands, offering thousands of travel destinations to more than 20 million travelers per month.
Complainant states that it is owned by Expedia, Inc., one of the world's largest travel companies and that Travelocity's main website,"www.travelocity.com", was launched in 1996. Through the site, travelers can take control of their bookings and reservations and research information about potential destinations. It is one of the most powerful one-stop travel sites on the Internet, providing secure online reservation capabilities for air, car, hotel, and vacation reservations, plus access to a database of destination and other travel information. The site provides reservation information for more than 700 airlines, more than 50,000 hotels, and more than 50 car rental companies.
Complainant states that it has been using the trademark TRAVELOCITY, either standing alone or in combination with other word and/or design elements, for its travel-related services since 1996. For nearly twenty years, Complainant has continuously advertised and offered services and products under the TRAVELOCITY name and mark. Complainant claims that it accordingly has developed strong rights in the TRAVELOCITY marks.
Complainant has, for years, extensively promoted its TRAVELOCITY services and "www.travelocity.com"
website throughout the world through online, print, and television advertising campaigns, and email communications, and used its TRAVELOCITY mark for its various social media platforms and mobile applications, including the TRAVELOCITY apps.
The promotion and exploitation of the TRAVELOCITY marks and all related sales, advertising, and promotional activities, Complainant states, have generated, and continue to generate, significant sales of
Complainant's services and products around the world.
Complainant states that it owns trademark and service mark registrations on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for its TRAVELOCITY marks, including TRAVELOCITY, TRAVELOCITY BUSINESS, and TRAVELOCITY PARTNER NETWORK for use in connection with the following services, among others:
- providing airline, car rental, tour package, and general travel information via a global computer network;
- providing hotel information and reservation services via a global computer network;
- making hotel reservations for others via a global computer network;
- providing information about vacation destinations via a global computer network; and
- travel agency services, namely, making reservations and bookings for temporary lodging, and for entertainment events, facilities and services.
Complainant states that it also owns numerous registrations for the TRAVELOCITY marks in countries around the world, including, but not limited to, Hong Kong, China, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and countries of the European Community.
Complainant and the "www.travelocity.com" website have received several awards over the years, including the "World's Leading Travel Internet Site" for nine consecutive years; the 2006 Best in Business Travel Award: Best Website for Booking Travel; the 2007 Stevie Award for Best Marketing Campaign; and the 2008 Atlas Best Overall Branding Award.
Complainant states that its "www.travelocity.com" website received an estimated 3,511,418 unique visits in November 2015, and is ranked #620 in terms of websites visited in the U.S.
In addition, Complainant states, Travelocity also owns the country-specific domain name <travelocity.ca> to direct Internet users to its site regarding Canada.
Complainant contends that, as a result of its longstanding use and promotion of the TRAVELOCITY marks, the consuming public and the trade recognize and associate the TRAVELOCITY marks with Complainant. Accordingly, the TRAVELOCITY marks have acquired a high degree of public recognition and distinctiveness as a symbol of the source of high quality services and products offered by Complainant, and embody valuable reputation and goodwill belonging exclusively to Complainant.
Complainant contends that Respondent is a known cybersquatter with a pattern of registering as domain names the trade names and marks, or variations thereof, of third parties and that Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith by numerous panels and refers to eleven cases including Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v. Isaac Goldstein, WIPO Case No. D2015-2168; Comerica Bank v. Isaac Goldstein, WIPO Case No. D2015-1997; and Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Isaac Goldstein, Hulmiho Ukolen, Poste restante/Domain Admin, Whois Protection, this company does not own this domain name s.r.o., WIPO Case No. D2015-1787.
It states that a number of the UDRP decisions involving Respondent have specifically discussed Respondent's bad faith registration of domain names, including typos into domain names, based on the trademarks and trade names of third parties, or variations thereof, and Respondent's use of such domain names to direct web traffic to websites from which Respondent derives a financial benefit.
It refers to Comerica Bank v. Isaac Goldstein, WIPO Case No. D2015-1997 and Softronic AB v. Privacy Protect / Frank Lancaster / Isaac Goldstein, WIPO Case No. D2013-0637. Complainant contends that Respondent's operation of domain names plundering the reputation of well-known marks and trade names and exploiting the reputations of Complainant and others is an abuse of their rights and equates to bad faith and refers to HBH, Limited Partnership v. Michele Dinoia/ SZK.com, WIPO Case No. D2005-1159 and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu v. Henry Chan, WIPO Case No. D2003-0584.
Complainant states that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on or around January 24, 2016, well after the TRAVELOCITY mark and "www.travelocity.com" website became well-known in the U.S. and other countries and that, since registering the Disputed Domain Name, Respondent has used it to redirect Internet traffic to a click-through revenue portal featuring a number of links that offer travel related products and services such as, by way of example, "Cheapest Flights," "Great Vacation Deals," "Luxury Beach Vacations," and "Last Minute Vacation Deals." Complainant contends that these links generate revenue for Respondent through a monetization service offered by Trellian Pty and its affiliate Above.com.
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's well-known TRAVELOCITY mark, as it is nothing more than a misspelling of the TRAVELOCITY mark by deleting the letter "l" and replacing the letter "c" with the letter "s".
Complainant states that such misspelling of the TRAVELOCITY mark is a classic example of typosquatting and refers to Tumblr, Inc. v. Jingsheng Feng, WIPO Case No. D2013-0454 (finding that "[i]n light of the distinctiveness of the . . . mark and of its renown this apparent misspelling . . . of a single letter that could easily be mis-typed appears to the Panel to be more than just a co-incidence and amounts to a classic example of typo-squatting").
UDRP panels have consistently ruled that domain names which misspell a well-known mark are deemed confusingly similar to that mark.
Given the renown of Complainant's TRAVELOCITY marks, including Complainant's well-known "www.travelocity.com" website, plus Respondent's documented history of typosquatting and targeting trademarks owned by others and the fact that the Disputed Domain Name is an intentional misspelling of the TRAVELOCITY mark, Complainant submits that the only conclusion should be that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's TRAVELOCITY marks.
ii. Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name
Complainant submits that, since Complainant's adoption and extensive use of the TRAVELOCITY marks predate Respondent's first use of the Disputed Domain Name, the burden is on Respondent to establish rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and that where, as here, a complainant's marks are so well-known and recognized, there can be no rights or legitimate use by Respondent.
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is not, nor could it be contended to be, a legitimate name or nickname of Respondent, nor is it in any other way identified with or related to any rights or legitimate interest of Respondent. Respondent is not known by the name "traveosity" or "traveosity.com" or any variation thereof.
Complainant states that Respondent cannot demonstrate or establish rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. There is no relationship between Complainant and Respondent giving rise to any license, permission, or other right by which Respondent could own or use any domain name incorporating or imitating the TRAVELOCITY mark. Complainant refers to Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
Complainant states that Respondent has never been given any permission by Complainant to register or use the Disputed Domain Name, or any other domain name incorporating or imitating Complainant's TRAVELOCITY name and mark. Respondent is not an authorized affiliate of Complainant and there has never been any business relationship between Complainant and Respondent.
Complainant submits that Respondent is neither using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name and that Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name, without permission or authorization from Complainant, to capitalize on the TRAVELOCITY marks and <travelocity.com> domain name and to redirect web traffic to a click-through portal with links offering travel related services unrelated to Complainant. Such use, it submits, is not a legitimate purpose but is an example of typosquatting. It submits that numerous panels have previously found that typosquatting does not constitute a legitimate use of a mark, and is "the obverse of a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name." Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, WIPO Case No. D2006-1043.
Complainant submits that, in view of its extensive use of its unique TRAVELOCITY marks for years, and the fact that Respondent has no rights in the TRAVELOCITY marks, Complainant reasonably believes that Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name not for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use purpose, but rather to profit from the traffic generated through the Disputed Domain Name.
iii. The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith for commercial gain and to benefit from the goodwill and notoriety associated with Complainant's TRAVELOCITY marks. It contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith by leveraging the notoriety of the TRAVELOCITY marks to monetize and profit from the web traffic that flows through the Disputed Domain Name.
Complainant submits that Respondent's bad faith is also exhibited by the fact that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name years after Complainant's TRAVELOCITY mark became well-known, and has used the Disputed Domain Name to profit via a click-through revenue portal and that Respondent was and is fully aware of Complainant's rights in its TRAVELOCITY marks when Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name and used such to offer links to competing travel related services. Complainant contends that Respondent is using, without authorization, the goodwill and reputation built by Complainant in its TRAVELOCITY marks.
Complainant also contends that Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name are also established as this is an example of typosquatting, as "traveosity" is simply a misspelling of Complainant's TRAVELOCITY mark. A "finding of 'typosquatting' is sufficient to establish use and registration in bad faith." FragranceX.com, Inc v. Argosweb Corp a/k/a Oleg Technio in this name and under various aliases, WuWeb Pty Ltd, Alichec Inc., Belroots Pty Ltd, Crystal Image Pty Ltd, Elarson & Associates Pty Ltd, Lidnick Webcorp, Liquid SEO Limited, Loshedina Inc, Luchichang Pty Ltd, Netmilo Pty Ltd, Orel Hlasek LLC, Volchar Pty Ltd, Web Pescados LLC, Webatopia Marketing Limited, ZincFusion Limited, Chin-Hui Wu, Domain Administrator, Denholm Borg, Denesh Kumar, Marcelos Vainez, Alex Ovechkin, Vlad Obchikov, WIPO Case No. D2010-1237.
Finally, Complainant submits, Respondent's bad faith registration and use is further established by the fact that Respondent has an established pattern of bad faith cybersquatting. Respondent has been found in over thirty prior proceedings as having registered and used in bad faith domain names based on the marks of others. Such history and pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names is, in itself, an indication that Respondent's action in registering and using a typo in a domain name based on the TRAVELOCITY mark is in bad faith. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation v. Digi Real Estate, WIPO Case No. D2005-1111 ("Respondent's bad faith is established already by the fact that Respondent was involved in several domain name dispute resolution proceedings as a respondent").
Based on all of the above, Complainant contends that it has met the requirements of the Policy by demonstrating not only Complainant's own legitimate interest in its TRAVELOCITY marks, as evidenced by its extensive use of the marks for years, but also that Respondent has no legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent's registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name to divert Internet traffic for commercial gain shows Respondent's bad faith. Accordingly, Complainant contends that it is entitled to the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name.
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.
The Policy establishes three elements, specified in paragraph 4(a) that must be established by Complainant to obtain relief. These elements are:
(i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name;
(iii) The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Each of these elements will be addressed below.
Complainant must establish these elements even if the Respondent does not reply (see The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang, WIPO Case No. D2002-1064). However, under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel is entitled to draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from a party's failure to comply with any provision of or requirement under, the Rules, including Respondent's failure to file a Response.
In the absence of a Response, the Panel may also accept as true the reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint (see ThyssenKrupp USA, Inc. v. Richard Giardini, WIPO Case No. D2001-1425 (citing Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009)).
Paragraph 15 of the Rules provides that the Panel is to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted. As the proceeding is an administrative one, Complainant bears the onus of proving its case on the balance of probabilities. Complainant must therefore establish all three of the elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy on the balance of probabilities before a decision can be made to cancel or transfer the Disputed Domain Name.
i. The Disputed Domain Name Is Confusingly Similar To Complainant's Marks
The Panel accepts that Complainant is the record owner, itself or by assignment from its predecessors-in-interest, of the TRAVELOCITY marks referred to above and that its predecessors-in-interest include, among others, Travelocity, Inc.; Travelocity.com LP; Terrapin, Inc.; and TSGL Holding, Inc.
The Panel accepts that Complainant, founded in 1996, is a leading provider of consumer-direct travel services for the leisure and business traveler and is a well recognized online travel brands, offering thousands of travel destinations to more than 20 million travelers per month.
The Panel notes that Complainant is owned by Expedia, Inc., one of the world's largest travel companies and that Complainant's main website, "www.travelocity.com", was launched in 1996.
The Panel accepts that Complainant has been using the trademark TRAVELOCITY, either standing alone or in combination with other word and/or design elements, for its travel-related services since 1996 and has advertised and offered services and products under the TRAVELOCITY name and mark thereby developing strong rights in the TRAVELOCITY marks.
The Panel accepts that Complainant owns relevant trademark and service mark registrations in many countries for a variety of travel goods and services, together with domain names.
The Panel accepts that, as a result of Complainant's longstanding use and promotion of the TRAVELOCITY marks, the consuming public and the trade recognize and associate the TRAVELOCITY marks with Complainant and that the TRAVELOCITY marks have acquired a high degree of public recognition and distinctiveness.
The Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Name is a misspelling of the TRAVELOCITY mark as the letter "l" has been deleted and the letter "c" has been replaced with the letter "s".
The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's TRAVELOCITY mark.
ii. Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name
The Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Name is not a legitimate name or nickname of Respondent, nor is it in any other way identified with or related to any rights or legitimate interest of Respondent who is not known by the name "traveosity" or "traveosity.com" or any variation thereof.
The Panel accepts that Respondent cannot demonstrate or establish rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and that there is no relationship between Complainant and Respondent giving rise to any license, permission, or other right by which Respondent could own or use any domain name incorporating or imitating the TRAVELOCITY mark.
The Panel accepts that Respondent has never been given any permission by Complainant to register or use the Disputed Domain Name, or any other domain name incorporating or imitating Complainant's TRAVELOCITY name and mark and that Respondent is not an authorized affiliate of Complainant and there has never been any business relationship between Complainant and Respondent.
The Panel accepts that Respondent is neither using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, but is typosquatting which does not constitute a legitimate use of a mark.
The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.
iii. The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in Bad Faith
The Panel accepts that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name years after Complainant's TRAVELOCITY mark became well-known and that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant's rights in its TRAVELOCITY marks when it registered the Disputed Domain Name.
The Panel accepts that Respondent used this registration which constitutes typosquatting, to offer links to competing travel related services using, without authorization, the goodwill and reputation built by Complainant in its TRAVELOCITY marks.
The Panel also accepts that Respondent's history and pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names is in itself an indication that Respondent's action in registering and using a typo in a domain name based on the TRAVELOCITY mark is in bad faith.
The Panel accepts that Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name not for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use purpose, but rather to profit from the traffic generated through it. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name <traveosity.com> be transferred to Complainant.
Isabel Davies
Sole Panelist
Date: April 10, 2016