WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD
Case No. D2019-2724
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., United States of America (the “United States” or “USA”), represented by Sanchez Fischer Levine, LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <roalcaribbean.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited dba Register Matrix (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 6, 2019. On November 7, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 10, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 13, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 3, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 6, 2019.
The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on December 9, 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 Complainant is the owner of the trade mark ROYAL CARIBBEAN registered, inter alia, in the USA under registration no. 1397148 for cruise services since 1986.
The Domain Name registered in 2002 has been pointed to pay-per-click links competing with the Complainant.
5. Parties’ Contentions
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark ROYAL CARIBBEAN registered, inter alia, in the USA for cruise services since 1986 and used since 1970.
The Domain Name registered in 2002 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, merely omitting a letter “y” and adding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” which does not prevent said confusing similarity.
The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.
The Domain Name points to links which mimic links that would be present on an official site of the Complainant, but are diversionary and competing pay-per-click links in the cruise sector. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith attempting to intentionally attract for commercial gain Internet users to the Respondent’s site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source of the web site or services on it disrupting the Complainant’s business and seeking to profit from use of the Complainant’s mark. The links are presumably malware and obtaining valuable personal data from Internet users. Royal Caribbean is distinctive and typosquatting demonstrates the Respondent has actual knowledge of the Complainant’s mark.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of a term confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ROYAL CARIBBEAN mark (registered in the USA for cruise services in 1986) merely omitting a letter “y” and adding the gTLD “.com”.
The Panel agrees that misspellings such as omission of a letter and the addition of the gTLD “.com” do not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trade mark pursuant to the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorised the use of a misspelling of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name.
There is no evidence the Domain Name has been, in fact, used for phishing or malware.
However, use for pay-per-click links that compete with a complainant is not a bona fide offering of good or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Typosquatting can also be an indication that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register a domain name containing a term confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
The Domain Name seeks to take advantage of the situation where Internet users may make a typographical error. Typosquatting in this case is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use and is evidence that the Respondent actually knew of the Complainant and its business and rights.
Use for competing pay-per-click links also indicates bad faith being disruptive of the Complainant’s business and diverting customers for commercial gain and also indicates actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business.
As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <roalcaribbean.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Dated: December 13, 2019