About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Oleg Osinskyi

Case No. D2020-1493

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., United States of America (“United States”), internally represented.

The Respondent is WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Oleg Osinskyi, Indonesia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <royalcaribbeancruises.ltd> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 9, 2020. On June 9, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 9, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 18, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant did not file an amended Complaint.

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 July 1, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 21, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 24, 2020.

The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on August 12, 2020. 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 incorporated in Liberia and located in Florida, United States. It is a provider of sea cruising services.

The Complainant is the proprietor of United States trademark number 1397148 for the mark ROYAL CARIBBEAN, registered on June 10, 1986 for “arranging and conducting cruises for others” in Class 39.

The disputed domain name was registered on May 17, 2020. It does not appear to have resolved to any active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that it has used the name and mark ROYAL CARIBBEAN since 1970 and that it is an inherently distinctive name whose only meaning is to identify the Complainant and its services.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights. It states that the disputed domain name fully incorporates its ROYAL CARIBBEAN trademarks and that the addition of the term “cruises” does not detract from its confusing similarity to that trademark.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that it has never authorized the Respondent to use its ROYAL CARIBBEAN trademark and that the Respondent is not commonly known by a name corresponding to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that because the mark ROYAL CARIBBEAN can refer only to the Complainant it is obvious that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to misdirect Internet users to its own website.

The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purpose of a “phishing” email scam, whereby the Complainant’s customers and crew members have been asked to provide their login and bank details and to redirect monies into the Respondent’s bank account. However, the Complainant does not submit any evidence in support of these allegations.

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are:

(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established that it has registered trademark rights in the name and mark ROYAL CARIBBEAN. The disputed domain name comprises that trademark in full, together with the dictionary term “cruises”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Panel therefore finds that that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not filed a Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. There being no other evidence before the Panel of any such rights or legitimate interests, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s distinctive trademark ROYAL CARIBBEAN, together with the term “cruises”, which is descriptive of the Complainant’s principal activity. The only conclusion that the Panel can reasonably reach in these circumstances is that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark in mind and for the purpose of taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill in that trademark. The Panel finds the disputed domain name to be inherently misleading and to constitute an impersonation of the Complainant and that there is no legitimate use to which the Respondent could put the disputed domain name without the Complainant’s authorization.

The Panel notes the Complainant’s additional allegations concerning the use of the disputed domain name. While the Respondent has not contradicted those allegations, the Panel makes no finding in that regard in the absence of any supporting evidence from the Complainant.

The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 name, <royalcaribbeancruises.ltd>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: August 24, 2020

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/