Rightsy — Protect your rights: IP search and flat-fee legal services

Search trademarks

Expedia, Inc. v. Momm Amed Ia

WIPO Case No. D2002-0157

Outcome
Transfer
Domain names
expida.com
Complainant
Expedia, Inc.
Respondent
Momm Amed Ia
Panelist
Professor Michael Charles Pryles
Decided
08 May 2002
Language
English

Source: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. Official copy: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0157.html

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Expedia Inc v. Momm Amed Ia

Case No. D2002-0157

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Expedia Inc ('Expedia'). Expedia is a Washington corporation

with its principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington, United States

of America. The Complainant is represented by Christensen O'Connor Johnson

Kindness, 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2800, Seattle, Washington,

United States of America.

The Respondent is Momm Amed Ia whose address is Kwangsan-gu Myongdo-dong

13-1, Kwangju, 506-011, Korea. The Respondent has no authorised representative

for this proceeding.

2. The Domain Name And Registrar

The domain name in dispute ('Domain Name') is <expida.com>.

The Domain Name was first registered on April 25, 2000.

The Registrar with which the Domain Name is registered is BulkRegister.com, Inc

of 7 East Redwood Street, Baltimore, MD 21202, United States

of America.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in electronic format on February 15, 2002

and hard copies were filed on February 19, 2002. On February 21, 2002,

the Center transmitted acknowledgment of receipt of complaint. On February 25, 2002,

the Center transmitted a request for register verification to BulkRegister.com,

in connection with this case. On February 25, 2002, Bulkregister.com sent

via e-mail to the Center a verification response confirming that the Respondent

is the registrant.

On March 5, 2002, the Center verified the Complaint satisfied the requirements

of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the 'Policy'),

the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy (the 'Rules') and the

Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution (the 'Supplemental

Rules').

On March 5, 2002, the Center formally commenced this proceeding

and sought to notify the Respondent that its response would be due by March 25, 2002.

The Center notified the Respondent of default on March 27, 2002.

On April 24, 2002, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center notified the

parties that an Administrative Panel had been appointed consisting of a

single Panelist, Professor Michael Charles Pryles, who had submitted

a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence.

4. Factual Background

A. The Complainant

The Complainant is the owner of a number of registered trademarks for the

mark 'expedia', first registered by its predecessor interest, Microsoft

Corporation ('Microsoft'). The registrations for the above trademark were

assigned by Microsoft to the Complainant by written assignment.

On or about April 25, 2000, the Domain Name, was registered by

the Respondent with BulkRegister.com Inc. On September 24, 2001,

the Complainant, through its lawyers sent a 'cease and desist' letter to

the Respondent regarding the Domain Name.

The Complainant contends that at the time of sending the above letter the

Domain Name pointed to www.priceline.com via the URL http://www.gogoo.com/treasure/travel.html.

Priceline Inc is a direct competitor of the Complainant. The Complainant

contends that it contacted Priceline Inc regarding the Domain Name and arrangements

were made for the termination of the link between the Domain Name and Priceline

Inc's website.

The Complainant contends, that at the time of filing this Complaint the

Domain Name was linked to <onetravel.com> which is another

competitor of the Complainant.

B. The Respondent

According to Network Solutions' Whois database, the Respondent in this

administrative proceeding is Momm Amed Ia. The Respondent has not filed

a response.

5. Parties’ Contentions

Domain Name and Registered Trade Mark Confusing Similar

(paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy)

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to

its Registered Trade Marks in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial

impression.

The Complainant is engaged in the business of travel related goods and

services. The Complainant submits that a customer seeking travel-related

goods and services may reasonably believe that upon entering the Domain

Name the home page of the Complainant would appear <expedia.com>.

The Complainant draws on statements by the United States Patent & Trade

Mark Office which has determined that a name that differs from a registered

trade mark merely by the omission or addition of one letter is an infringement

based on confusing similarity.

The Complainant submits that the Domain Name is an arbitrary term that

has no meaning except as an identifier of the Respondent's goods and services.

The Complainant contends that the deletion of one letter 'e' and the misplacement

of another letter 'i' in the Domain Name creates a likelihood of confusion

between the Complainant's registered trade mark and the Domain Name. The

Complainant asserts that the deletion of such letters is commonly known

as 'typo swapping' and one in which confusion readily occurs amongst consumers.

The Respondent has not filed a response.

Legitimate Interest or Right in the Domain Name (paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy)

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has neither used nor made

demonstrable preparation to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona

fide offering of goods or services.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no right or legitimate

interest in the Domain Name. Further, the Complainant asserts that links

to competitor's websites from the Domain Name highlights an illegitimate

interest arising in the Respondent.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not commonly known by the

Domain Name. The Complainant points to the name of the Respondent being

Momm Amed Ia and concludes that the Domain Name has no correlation with

the personal name of the Respondent.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent by his conduct, is tarnishing

the Trade Mark rights of the Complainant. The benefits accruing to competitors

of the Complainant arising from confused internet traffic is evidence, the

Complainant submits, of an illegitimate interest vested in the Respondent.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent is neither licensed nor authorized

to use the Complainant's Trade Mark rights.

The Respondent has not filed a response.

Registration in Bad Faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy)

The Complainant contends that pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy

that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct demonstrating bad

faith regarding the Domain Name. The Complainant points to a number of cases

in which the Respondent has been found engaged in a pattern of 'cyber squatting

and cyber piracy'.

Further, the Complainant contends that the unauthorized direction of internet

traffic from the Domain Name to competitors of the Complainant constitutes

a commercial gain to the Respondent. This commercial gain is one derived

in bad faith and not authorized by the Complainant.

The Respondent has not filed a response.

6. Discussion and Findings

General

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each

of the following:

- The domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trade

marks; and

- The respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of

the domain names; and

- The domain names have been registered and are being used in bad

faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances that,

if proved, constitute evidence of bad faith as required by paragraph 4(a)(iii)

referred to above.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances

that, if proved, constitute evidence of a right or legitimate interest as

described in paragraph 4(a)(ii) referred to above.

Domain Names Identical / Confusingly Similar

The Complainant's registered Trade Mark ('expedia') and the Domain Name

('expida') are confusingly similar. It is true that the letter 'i' has been

substituted for the second letter 'e' and that the second last letter 'i'

has been deleted in the Domain Name. But this substitution and deletion

of vowels does not suffice to render the Domain Name significantly different

from the Trade Mark. The pronunciation, appearance and sound of the Domain

Name is confusingly similar to the registered Trade Mark of the Complainant.

The panel, therefore finds that the Domain Name is likely to confuse consumers

who may reasonably assume that the Domain Name is in some way associated

with the Complainant.

No Right or Legitimate Interest

There is no evidence that the Respondent has made a legitimate or fair

use of the Domain Name, or that he is commonly known by the name 'expida'.

In the absence of submissions by the Respondent, the Panel is unable to

identify any legitimate right or interest as required in paragraph 4(a)(ii)

of the Policy which the Respondent may claim.

The panel therefore, finds that the Respondent has no right or legitimate

interest in the Domain Name.

Domain Names Registered and used in Bad Faith

There is evidence submitted by the Complainant that demonstrates bad faith

by the Respondent. The panel notes that the Domain Name was registered some

time after the registration of the Complainant's trademark. Further, the

Respondent appears to have derived a commercial benefit from confusion and

misdirection of internet traffic from the Domain Name. Of significance is

the fact that the Respondent pointed the Domain Name to direct competitors

of the Complainant. This clearly demonstrates registration and use in bad

faith.

The panel is further persuaded that the Complainant has engaged in a consistent

course of conduct, demonstrated by a number of previous decisions cited

by the Complainant, which point to a conduct known as 'typo squatting'.

The purpose of such conduct is to capitalize on the typographical errors

of web users in entering a domain name for a particular web site. The consequence

of such conduct is usually to divert internet traffic that would have otherwise

sought the Trade Mark owners web site. The panel is persuaded that the Respondent

has engaged in bad faith by registering the Domain Name.

7. Decision

The panel finds that the Domain Name should be transferred to the Complainant.

Professor Michael Charles Pryles

Sole Panelist

Dated: May 8, 2002

More cases by this complainant

Open this decision on Rightsy