WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. nibah fondikum

Case No. D2016-1786

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America (“US”), represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, US.

The Respondent is nibah fondikum of Bamanda, Cameroon.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <grahamintercontinentalhotel.com> is registered with NetEarth One Inc. d/b/a NetEarth (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 1, 2016. On September 1, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 1, 2016 the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 7, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 27, 2016. The Center received two email communications from the Respondent on September 21 and 22, 2016 requesting information about the content of the Complaint, but the Center did not receive a formal Response to the Complaint.

The Center appointed Felipe Claro as the sole panelist in this matter on October 12, 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.

4. Factual Background

1. The Complainant is one of a number of companies collectively known as InterContinental Hotels Group (“IHG”), one of the world’s largest hotel groups by number of rooms. Companies within IHG own, manage, lease or franchise, through various subsidiaries, more than 5,000 hotels and nearly 750,000 guest rooms in almost 100 countries and territories around the world. IHG owns a portfolio of well-recognized and respected hotel brands including InterContinental Hotels & Resorts, Kimpton Hotels & Restaurants, Holiday Inn Hotels and Resorts, Holiday Inn Express, Crowne Plaza Hotels & Resorts, Hotel Indigo, Staybridge Suites, Candlewood Suites, Hualuxe and Even Hotels, and also manages the world’s largest hotel loyalty program, IHG Rewards Club.

2. IHG has prevailed in numerous proceedings under the Policy involving the INTERCONTINENTAL Trademark, including the largest UDRP Complaint ever filed: Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation, Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Daniel Kirchhof, WIPO Case No. D2009-1661; and, recently, Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. Amador Holdings Corp, Alex Arrocha / Private Whois / Global Domain Privacy Services Inc, WIPO Case No. D2015-2278 (transfer of <intercontinenal.com>); and Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Fred Adams, WIPO Case No. D2016-0715 (transfer of <intercontinental-hotel.com>).

3. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 7, 2016 – 68 years after the Complainant (or its predecessors) first began using the INTERCONTINENTAL Trademark.

4. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with an employment-related and identity-theft scam, by impersonating the Complainant in an effort to obtain personal information and money from innocent job seekers.

5. The Complainant attached a copy of the home page of the website associated with the disputed domain name, which purports to be for the “Graham Intercontinental Hotel” – but which is not associated with the Complainant and, to the Complainant’s knowledge, is merely a fraudulent website that does not represent an actual hotel of any kind. The page is not active on this date.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

1. The Complainant’s InterContinental hotel brand was founded in 1948 and today is used in connection with 183 hotels worldwide (with 57 additional hotels in the pipeline), which collectively offer 62,406 hotel rooms.

2. The Complainant (or its affiliates) own at least 287 registrations in at least 176 countries or geographic regions worldwide for trademarks that consist of or contain the mark INTERCONTINENTAL.

3. The Complainant attached printouts from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s “Trademark Electronic Search System” for the following INTERCONTINENTAL Trademark registrations:

4. Previous Panels under the Policy have found that the Complainant has rights in and to the INTERCONTINENTAL Trademark. See, e.g., Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Fred Adams, see supra; Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation, Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Daniel Kirchhof, see supra; Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. Cheap-Hotel-Room, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2003-1041 (transfer of <wwwintercontinental.com>); Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. James, dsgn factory, WIPO Case No. D2011-2046 (“[t]he Complainant provided evidence that it has prior registered rights in the mark INTERCONTINENTAL in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific. From the evidence supplied, the Panel finds that INTERCONTINENTAL is a well-known mark, at least in relation to hotels”); Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. Hui Lian Yang/Yang Hui Lian; a/k/a Jian Ren Zhou/Zhou Jian Ren; a/k/a Jian Guo Liu/Liu Jian Guo, WIPO Case No. D2014-0272 (“[t]he Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has registered trademark rights in the INTERCONTINENTAL mark”); Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. Louise Lane / WhoisGuard, WIPO Case No. D2012-2037 (transfer of <intercontinental-kl.com>); Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. lin qing feng, WIPO Case No. D2013-1639 (transfer of <sz-intercontinental.com>); and Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. Mr. Tuan / Mr. Miko / Miss Ha Phuong, WIPO Case No. D2014-1987 (transfer of <intercontinental-nhatrang.com>).

B. Respondent

The Respondent sent two messages to the Center, on September 21 and 22, asking for a direct or personal explanation about the content of the Complaint and the Center provided the Respondent with the necessary information in writing. The Respondent considered the correspondence received to be stupid, and did not reply the Complaint, thus losing a valuable opportunity to argue in favor of the domain name registration.

6. Discussion and Findings

In view of the lack of a suitable response filed by the Respondent as required under paragraph 5 of the Rules, this proceeding has proceeded by way of default. Hence, under paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel is directed to decide this administrative proceeding based on the Complainants’ undisputed representations. In that regard and apart from judging this proceeding through mere default of the Respondent, the Panel makes the following specific findings.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INTERCONTINENTAL Trademark. The relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the disputed domain name only (i.e., “grahamintercontinentalhotel”), as it is well-established that the top-level domain name (i.e., “.com”) may be disregarded for this purpose. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 1.2: “The applicable top-level suffix in the domain name (e.g., “.com”) would usually be disregarded under the confusing similarity test (as it is a technical requirement of registration), except in certain cases where the applicable top-level suffix may itself form part of the relevant trademark.”

2 The only differences between the disputed domain name and the INTERCONTINENTAL Trademark are the addition of the words “graham” and “hotel” to the disputed domain name. The word “hotel” limits the discussion to the “hotel activity” and it is irrelevant analyzing distinctiveness – or, if anything, it may actually increase the confusing similarity, given that the word “hotel” is obviously associated with, and even describes, the Complainant’s services using the INTERCONTINENTAL Trademark. See, e.g, Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Fred Adams, WIPO Case No. D2016-0715 (finding <intercontinental-hotel.com> confusingly similar to the INTERCONTINENTAL Trademark because the word “hotel” “does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the [INTERCONTINENTAL] Trademark”); Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. James, dsgn factory, WIPO Case No. D2011-2046 (finding <intercontinentallondonhotel.com> confusingly similar to the INTERCONTINENTAL Trademark because “the addition of ‘hotel… to INTERCONTINENTAL serves to increase the confusing similarity”); Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. Hui Lian Yang/Yang Hui Lian; a/k/a Jian Ren Zhou/Zhou Jian Ren; a/k/a Jian Guo Liu/Liu Jian Guo, WIPO Case No. D2014-0272 (finding <intercontinentalshenzhenhotel.com> confusingly similar to the INTERCONTINENTAL Trademark because “the generic word ‘hotel’, could not avoid a finding of confusing similarity, but instead, increases the likelihood of confusion between the Domain Names and the Complainant’s trademark, since the added words relate to the Complainant’s business”); and Inter-Continental Hotels v. yin wei fen, WIPO Case No. D2014-1741 (finding <intercontinentalexpohotel.com> confusingly similar to the INTERCONTINENTAL Trademark because “the addition of merely generic, descriptive terms, added either singly or collectively, to a trademark in a domain name would normally be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP”).

3. Although it is unclear why the Respondent included the word “Graham” in the disputed domain name, numerous previous panels have found that the addition of a given name to a disputed domain name does not diminish confusing similarity. See, e.g., Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Tirupati Hotel / Tirupati Hotal, WIPO Case No. D2015-1937 (“[w]here, as here, the second-level domain contains a complainant’s trademark… plus a geographic identifier… previous panels under the Policy have found confusing similarity”); FIL Limited v. fidelity-investments-ivanov.com, Domain Discreet Privacy Service / Igor Ivanov, WIPO Case No. D2014-0131 (“[t]he addition of a surname to a [d]omain [n]ame that otherwise incorporates a mark in its entirety typically does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity”); and Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Domain Admin - Privacy Protection Service Inc d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org / Raajganesh, RKPlanet, WIPO Case No. D2014-0462 (“[t]he addition of a personal name to a well-known Trademark does not give sufficient distinctiveness to the disputed domain name”).

4. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the INTERCONTINENTAL Trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

1. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has never assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use the INTERCONTINENTAL Trademark in any manner. “Th[is] fact, on its own, can be sufficient to prove the second criterion [of the Policy].” Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. IQ Management Corporation, WIPO Case No. D2004-0272; Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Patrick Ory, WIPO Case No. D2003-0098 (“There is no evidence of any commercial relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent which would entitle the Respondent to the mark. Consequently, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights nor legitimate interests in the Domain Name given there exists no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent that would give rise to any license, permission or authorization by which the Respondent could own or use the Domain Name.”); see also Marriott International, Inc. v. Thomas, Burstein and Miller, WIPO Case No. D2000-0610 (transferring domain name <marriottreward.com> where “[n]o evidence was presented that at any time had the Complainant ever assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use the marks MARRIOTT REWARDS or MARRIOTT in any manner”).

2. Previous panels under the Policy have found that a lack of rights or legitimate interests exists where, as here, “Complainant asserts that it has not authorized Respondent to use the mark.” Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company LLC v. Texas International Property Associates- NA NA, WIPO Case No. D2008-0144. See also Western Union Holdings, Inc. v. Domain Drop S.A.; Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Patrick Ory, WIPO Case No. D2003-0098 (“There is no evidence of any commercial relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent which would entitle the Respondent to the mark. Consequently, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights nor legitimate interests in the Domain Name given there exists no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent that would give rise to any license, permission or authorization by which the Respondent could own or use the Domain Name.”); Marriott International, Inc. v. Thomas, Burstein and Miller, see supra (transferring domain name <marriottreward.com> where “[n]o evidence was presented that at any time had the Complainant ever assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use the marks MARRIOTT REWARDS or MARRIOTT in any manner”).

3. There are many Graham hotels around the world and there is no trace of a real connection among any of them and the Respondent, including the emails sent to the Center.

4. Further, by using the disputed domain name in connection with an employment/phishing scam, the Respondent has failed to create a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy – and, therefore, the Respondent cannot demonstrate rights or legitimate interests under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Fred Adams, see supra (using a disputed domain name “in employment and phishing scam activities via the disputed domain name” creates “a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”); Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc., The Sheraton LLC, Sheraton International Inc. v. infosheraton, WIPO Case No. D2010-2195 (finding no rights or legitimate interests where respondent used the disputed domain name “to conduct a job-search scam aimed at stealing the money and identity of unsuspecting individuals… [and] that although there is no current active website associated with the disputed domain name, the domain name is being used in connection with [an] email address [containing the domain name] to perpetrate this job fraud scam”); and Terex Corporation v. Williams Sid, Partners Associate, WIPO Case No. D2014-1742 (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the disputed domain name was used “in connection with an employment-related and identity-theft scam, by impersonating Complainant in an effort to obtain personal information from innocent job-seekers”).

5. To the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has never acquired any Trademark or service mark rights in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Respondent cannot establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. Specifically, according to the Whois record provided by the Complainant, the registrant of the disputed domain name is “nibah fondikum” – not “InterContinental Hotel” or anything similar thereto.

6. By using the disputed domain name in connection with an employment/phishing scam, the Respondent’s actions are clearly commercial and, therefore, Respondent cannot establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.

a. See e.g., Société des Hotels Meridien v. WhoIs Guard / Jim Thiam, WIPO Case No. D2011-1030:

“Based on the case record, the Panel accepts the arguments of the Complainant that the Respondent’s only use of the disputed domain name is in connection with what appears to be a fraudulent job fraud scam, as an email server for sending fraudulent email messages purportedly on behalf of the human resources department of the Le Meridien Kuala Lumpur hotel, and to redirect all Internet traffic to “www.lemeridien-kl.com” to the Complainant’s official website for the Le Meridien Kuala Lumpur hotel, “www.lemeridienkualalumpur.com” in order to confuse prospective job applicants so that they believe that the job offer and subsequent request for a visa application and money from the applicants is legitimate. The Panel accepts the arguments of the Complainant that the Respondent’s only use of the disputed domain name appears to be in connection with this job fraud scam and the related online data collection scheme designed to collect the names, email addresses and other personal contact details from unsuspecting job applicants. The Panel concludes that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name for commercial gain and with the purpose of capitalizing on the fame of the Complainant’s Trademarks and company name.”

7. In addition, the Respondent also lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by creating a website for a fictitious hotel that falsely appears to be associated with the Complainant. As a previous panel said in a case with similar facts brought by another hotel company against a cybersquatter, “operating a website at [a disputed domain name] featuring services that purport to allow an Internet user to reserve a room at one of Complainant’s hotels” constitutes “[i]nfringement of another’s Trademark or service mark [that] can never create rights or legitimate interests in a corresponding domain name.” Accor and Soluxury HMC v. Yu Gang, WIPO Case No. D2012-1593. See also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. and Westin Hotel Management, L.P. v. M On, WIPO Case No. D2012-1009 (finding no rights or legitimate interests where “the website associated with the disputed domain name was virtually identical to the Complainant’s own site for its hotel in Shanghai except that the website was in Chinese”); Six Continents Hotels, Inc., v. Bunjong Chaiviriyawong, WIPO Case No. D2013-1942 (“the use of the website to promote services arguably competitive to, and certainly related to the Complainant’s activity [using the Crowne Plaza Trademark], can in no way constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of disputed the domain name in this case”); and Six Continents Hotels Inc. v. “m on”, WIPO Case No. D2012-2525 (“At the heart of the Complaint is the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent has taken the Trademark of the Complainant with a view to attracting Internet users to a website offering hotel services, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website…. The Panel accepts that such activity clearly does not provide the Respondent with a legitimate interest in the Domain Name.”).

8. Finally, given the Complainant’s worldwide use of the INTERCONTINENTAL Trademark for 68 years, including Nigeria, which is Cameroon’s neighbor country, as well as its numerous registrations worldwide, it is unlikely that the Respondent be commonly known by this domain name. See Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Trasporto di Networ and Pro Intel, WIPO Case No. D2004-0246 (“given the Complainant’s established use of its… marks, it is unlikely that the Respondents are commonly known by any of these marks”).

9. Accordingly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

1. Previous panels under the Policy have decided that “[t]he only explanation of what has happened is that the Respondent’s motive in registering and using the [domain name] seems to be… simply to disrupt the Complainant’s relationship with its customers or potential customers or attempt to attract Internet users for potential gain. These both constitute evidence of registration and use in bad faith: paragraph 4(b)(iii) & (iv) of the Policy.” Pancil, LLC v. Jucco Holdings, WIPO Case No. D2006-0676. Indeed, given the global reach and popularity of the Complainant’s services under the INTERCONTINENTAL Trademark, “it is inconceivable that Respondent chose the contested domain name without knowledge of Complainant’s activities and the name and Trademark under which Complainant is doing business.” Pancil LLC v. Domain Deluxe, WIPO Case No. D2003-1035.

2. According to the case documentation, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with an employment/phishing scam. Numerous panels under the Policy have found that this activity constitutes bad faith. See, e.g.:

a. Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Fred Adams, see supra (“To the Panel’s mind it is further obvious that the undisputed use which the Respondent made of the disputed domain name as part of an employment and phishing scam and passing off itself as the Complainant, apparently so as to obtain certain information from Internet users as a result of the intentionally created confusion between the disputed domain name and the [INTERCONTINENTAL] Trademark, constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.”)

b. Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. ojk Jerry, WIPO Case No. D2015-1802 (“Respondent has been using the Domain Name in connection with an employment/phishing scam. As the Respondent appears to have used an email address in relation to the Domain Name… to impersonate the Complainant, this is further evidence that the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant’s rights in the… Trade Mark.”)

c. Accor v. Paul Hocevar, WIPO Case No. D2012-0025 (“Though the Domain Name is inactive, the Respondent uses an email address in relation with the Domain Name for recruitment services as an official member of Complainant to attract job hunters to apply for jobs through said email address. The Panel finds that the Respondent’s behavior may cause consumers to mistakenly believe that the Domain Name is owned by the Complainant and the bad faith is established.”)

d. Vifor (International) Ltd. v. Glenn Freeman, WIPO Case No. D2014-2065 (“Complainant has produced evidence that the disputed domain name has been used as a support to an email address used for impersonating Complainant, which was linked to bogus job advertisements on a third party website purportedly posted by Complainant…. Given the evidence of use of the disputed domain name for a fraudulent purpose, the Panel readily concludes that it was registered and is being used in bad faith by Respondent.”)

e. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton LLC, Sheraton International Inc. v. Isaac Isaac, WIPO Case No. D2011-1275 (transfer of <sheraton-kl.com>) (“By using the Claimant’s SHERATON mark in the disputed domain name and its associated email servers, the Respondent has exploited the goodwill in the SHERATON mark in order to mislead individuals who have wrongly believed themselves to be dealing with the Claimant. As a result of this deception, these individuals appear to have paid large sums of money to persons indicated by the Respondent possibly in the belief that doing so would secure their employment with the Claimant. The use to which the disputed domain name has been put by the Respondent makes it evident that it has been registered and used in bad faith.”)

f. Société des Hotels Meridien v. WhoIs Guard / Jim Thiam, WIPO Case No. D2011-1030 (transfer of <lemeridien-kl.com>) (“Given the fact that the Respondent appears to have used the disputed domain name and its associated email servers to impersonate employees of the Complainant’s Le Meridien Kuala Lumpur hotel is further evidence that the Respondent knew or must have known of the Complainant’s rights in the LE MERIDIEN marks and suggests the Respondent’s opportunistic bad faith in registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s exploitation of the Complainant’s goodwill for financial gain by perpetrating what appears to be a fraud on unsuspecting job applicants demonstrates in the view of this Panel the Respondent’s bad faith.”)

g. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc., The Sheraton LLC, Sheraton International Inc. v. infosheraton, WIPO Case No. D2010-2195 (transfer of <infosheraton.com>) (“It appears that Respondent’s only use of the disputed domain name is to use it as an email server for an email address used in connection with a job fraud scam designed to steal the identities and money from unsuspecting job applicants. This is a form of ‘phishing’, since it is intended to steal valuable information, and money, from the respondents to the fake job listings.”)

h. Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited v. Sandy Dreben, WIPO Case No. D2009-1333 (transfer of <careerstravelex.com>) (“Complainant provides evidence that the Respondent’s use of the Trademark is not just for the use of the Domain Name, as envisaged by paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, but rather for a blatant fraudulent purpose. As far as the Complainant is able to make out, the email addresses derived from the Domain Name are being used to front a money laundering scam. Using an email address associated with the Domain Name, […]@careerstravelex.com> the Respondent has been phishing to attract people to fictitious jobs with Travelex UK Limited (a member of the Travelex Group).”)

3. Moreover, by operating a website using the disputed domain name that falsely appears to be a website for one of the Complainant’s hotels, or otherwise associated with the Complainant, the Respondent quite obviously has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the INTERCONTINENTAL Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website, in violation of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See, e.g., Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. lin qing feng, WIPO Case No. D2013-1639 (“The Respondent has been using the disputed domain name in order to pass off the Website as a website of or otherwise authorised or approved by the Complainant. This is clear evidence of bad faith.”) See also, e.g., Six Continents Hotels, Inc., v. Bunjong Chaiviriyawong, WIPO Case No. D2013-1942 (“the disputed domain name resolves to a web page that advertises and offers hotel services in competition with the Complainant”); Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. and Westin Hotel Management, L.P. v. M On, WIPO Case No. D2012-1009 (“the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to purportedly market the rooms in the Complainant hotel in Shanghai on his website without the consent of the Complainant”); and Six Continents Hotels Inc. v. “m on”, WIPO Case No. D2012-2525 (“by using the Domain Name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, in relation to websites purportedly advertising hotel rooms under the CROWNE PLAZA trade mark, the Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the Respondent’s websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark in order to suggest that the websites are associated with, endorsed or sponsored by, or otherwise connected to the Complainant”).

4. As numerous decisions under the Policy have made clear, creating a website that appears to be a website for a complainant, as the Respondent has done in the instant case, is “likely fraudulent” and “indicates an intent to deceive or, at a minimum, act in bad faith with the intent for commercial gain.” DocuSign, Inc. v. Traffic CPMiPV, Maria Carter, WIPO Case No. D2010-0344. See also, e.g., Emu (Aus) Pty Ltd. and Emu Ridge Holdings Pty Ltd. v. Antonia Deinert, WIPO Case No. D2010-1390 (“a reasonable person who visited the Respondent’s website was likely to be misled in relation to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website and the products purportedly made available for online sale on the website”).

5. Finally, given the Complainant’s established rights in its Trademarks and the fact that the disputed domain name is obviously connected with the Complainant given its use of the INTERCONTINENTAL Trademark for almost 70 years, the Respondent’s actions suggest “opportunistic bad faith” in violation of the Policy. Research In Motion Limited v. Dustin Picov, WIPO Case No. D2001-0492. In light of this long history of the Complainant’s Trademarks and Complainant’s significant international presence and brand recognition, “[i]t is likely that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s mark, and has sought to obtain a commercial benefit by attracting Internet users based on that confusion.” Western Union Holdings, Inc. v. Manuel Rodriguez, WIPO Case No. D2006-0850 (finding bad faith and ordering the transfer of the domain name <casinowesternunion.com>).

6. Accordingly, the disputed domain name was 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 <grahamintercontinentalhotel.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Felipe Claro
Sole Panelist
Date: October 26, 2016