WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Hyatt Corporation, Hyatt International Corporation v. Lee Jinsoo

Case No. D2019-1876

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Hyatt Corporation, United States of America (“United States”) and Hyatt International Corporation, United States, represented by DLA Piper (LLP) US, United States.

The Respondent is Lee Jinsoo, Republic of Korea (“Korea”).

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <grandhyattjeju.com> and <grandhyattjeju.net> are registered with Whois Networks Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 2, 2019. On August 5, 2019, the Center transmitted to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On August 6, 2019, the Registrar transmitted to the Center its verification response, stating, inter alia, that the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is in Korean, and disclosing the registrant’s contact information for the disputed domain names, which differed from the named Respondent’s contact information in the Complaint.

On August 13, 2019, the Center notified the Parties, in both English and Korean, that the Complaint was submitted in English, and that according to the Registrar, the language of the registration agreement is Korean. In the same notification, the Center requested the Complainants to provide, by August 16, 2019:

“1) satisfactory evidence of an agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the proceedings should be in English; or

2) the Complaint translated into Korean; or

3) a request for English to be the language of the administrative proceedings.”

To the Respondent, the Center stated that “if the Respondent is intending to participate in these proceedings, and/or has any comments on the Complainant’s submission replying to this notification, the Respondent is requested to submit these to the Center by August 18, 2019.” The Center also advised the Respondent:

“Specifically in the case of the Complainant submitting (or indicating that it will submit) a request for the language of proceedings to be English, and the Respondent objects to such request, the Respondent is invited to indicate that objection for the record, and to submit any arguments/supporting materials … as to why the proceedings should not be conducted in English.

Please note that if we do not hear from you by [August 18, 2019], we will proceed on the basis that you have no objection to the Complainant’s request that English be the language of proceedings.”

Also on August 13, 2019, the Center separately provided the Complainants with the registrant information disclosed by the Registrar, and invited the Complainants to submit an amended Complaint.

On August 14, 2019, the Complainants transmitted to the Center their request that the proceeding be conducted in English. The Respondent did not submit any request regarding the language of the proceeding.

Also on August 14, 2019, the Complainants separately filed an amended Complaint.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 the Respondent, in both English and Korean, of the operative Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on August 26, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for the Response was September 15, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, on September 16, 2019, the Center notified the Respondent’s default.

The Center appointed Professor Ilhyung Lee as the sole panelist in this matter on October 1, 2019. 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainants describe themselves as “an international hotel management company which, through its affiliates, licensees, franchisees and authorized hotel owners, provides services for HYATT-branded properties, hotels and resorts throughout the world.” The Complainants have obtained in the United States registration of multiple marks containing “GRAND HYATT”, the first on April 2, 1985.

The Complainants registered the domain name <grandhyatt.com> on December 4, 1999, and <grandhyatt.net> on March 8, 2005.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain names on August 28, 2017. The disputed domain name <grandhyattjeju.com> does not resolve to any active website. The disputed domain name <grandhyattjeju.net> resolves to the Registrar’s parking page.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainants

The Complainants contend principally that: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainants have rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. In addition, the amended Complaint states, inter alia:

“For more than sixty (60) years, Hyatt, through its licensees, franchisees, affiliates and authorized hotel owners, has used the mark and name HYATT, and variations thereof (including GRAND HYATT), in connection with hotel and resort services in the United States and around the world ….”

“HYATT-branded hotels are among some of the most recognized hotels in the United States and the world ….”

“On 27 August 2017, the day before the [disputed] [d]omain [n]ames were registered, Hyatt announced that it would open a GRAND HYATT-branded hotel in Jeju, South Korea.”

“[T]he HYATT Marks, including the GRAND HYATT mark, are distinctive and famous and have enjoyed such distinctiveness and fame since long prior to the date Respondent registered the [disputed] [d]omain [n]ames.”

“Hyatt has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its HYATT Marks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the mark.”

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. Paragraphs 5(f) and 14(a) of the Rules allow the Panel to decide the dispute based on the Complaint. Under paragraph 14(b), the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.

6. Discussion and Findings

Initially, the Panel must address the language of the proceeding.

Although the Complainants assert that English is the language of the registration agreement, the Registrar informed the Center that the operative agreement is in Korean. Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that the language of the registration agreement is the language of the administrative proceeding, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or specified in the registration agreement. The rule also states that the determination of the language is “subject to the authority of the Panel …, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.”

The Panel notes that the Complainants’ local counsel in Korea sent a letter to the Respondent, in Korean text, demanding that the disputed domain names be transferred to the Complainants. The Respondent did not respond to the letter. The Respondent has also defaulted from this proceeding. Considering all the circumstances, the Panel determines that the proceeding will be in English.

On the merits, in order to prevail, the Complainants must show that all three elements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainants have established rights in the GRAND HYATT mark. The Panel determines that the disputed domain names <grandhyattjeju.com> and <grandhyattjeju.net> are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ mark. The “grandhyatt” text is prominently included in each of the disputed domain names. The mere addition of a geographical term – like “jeju” – to a complainant’s mark does not defeat confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i). WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8.

The first element is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainants state that they have not authorized the Respondent to use the Complainants’ HYATT marks, and have met their initial burden of making a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The burden shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate any such rights or legitimate interests. Paragraph 4(c) provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel is unable to ascertain any evidence that would demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, as described in the Policy, or otherwise.

The second element is demonstrated.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel determines that the record supports a finding of the bad faith element required in paragraph 4(a)(iii).

On August 27, 2017, the Complainants announced that Hyatt would open a new hotel in the Jeju province in Korea. The Respondent registered the disputed domain names the next day. That the disputed domain names resolve to inactive websites does not defeat a finding of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Here, GRAND HYATT is a well-known mark; the timing of the registration of the disputed domain names is suspect; and the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainants’ correspondence does not help its cause.

Under the circumstances, the Panel can only conclude that the Respondent has “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the Respondent’s] website … by creating a likelihood of confusion with the [C]omplainant[s’] mark,” as set forth in paragraph 4(b)(iv).

The third element is also established.

7. Decision

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 names <grandhyattjeju.com> and <grandhyattjeju.net> be transferred to the Complainant.

Ilhyung Lee
Sole Panelist
Date: October 15, 2019