À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Outrigger Hotels Hawaii v. Outrigger Vacation Club

Case No. D2010-1366

1. The Parties

Complainant is Outrigger Hotels Hawaii of Hawaii, United States of America.

Respondent is Outrigger Vacation Club of Texas, United States of America.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <outriggervacationclubonline.com>, <outriggervacationclubpro.com>, <outriggervacationclubs.com> are registered with Tucows Inc.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 12, 2010. On August 12, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Tucows Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On August 12, 2010, Tucows Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, Complainant filed a revised Complaint on August 18, 2010.

The Center verified that the Complaint revised 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 20, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 9, 2010. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 10, 2010.

The Center appointed M. Scott Donahey as the sole panelist in this matter on September 14, 2010. 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

Complainant is the holder of numerous registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the following marks: OUTRIGGER (for hotel management, travel and tour information, and travel agency services), the earliest of which issued on August 13, 1996 and which showed a first use in commerce of December 1963; OUTRIGGER HOTELS HAWAII (for hotel services), the earliest of which issued on November 14, 1989 and which showed a first use in commerce of December 1963; and, OUTRIGGER RESORT CLUB (for vacation real estate time share services), the earliest of which issued on August 10, 2004 and which showed a first use in commerce of December 15, 2002 (Complaint, Annexes 3 and 4). Based in Hawaii, Complainant has continuously operated in the fields of hospitality, resorts, travel, and resort services for more than sixty years.

Complainant is also the owner of several domain names, including <outrigger.com>, <outriggerhawaii.com>, <outriggercondominiumcollection.com>, <outriggerenterprisegroup.com>, and <outriggeragent.com>, the earliest of which was registered on October 26, 1994. All of the domain names listed above resolve to web sites at which Complainant’s services are offered (Complaint, Annex 5).

Respondent registered the disputed domain names on May 25, 2009. Respondent uses the domain names to resolve to web sites at which Respondent offers services directly competitive with those offered by Complainant (Complaint, Annex 6). On August 14, 2009, Complainant’s counsel wrote Respondent a cease and desist letter demanding that Respondent cease and desist from using the domain names to resolve to competitive web sites and that Respondent transfer the domain names to Complainant. By facsimile letter dated September 3, 2009, Respondent’s former counsel denied that any confusion existed and declined to either stop the use of the offending domain names or to transfer them to Complainant (Complaint, Annex 7).

Respondent’s web sites and Facebook page makes repeated references to resorts operated by Complainant, with no disclaimer that Respondent is unconnected with or is not authorized by Complainant to use Complainant’s service marks and service names, and which include links to Complainant’s web sites (Complaint, Annexes 9, 11, 13, 14, and 16).

Respondent’s conduct has been the subject of numerous consumer complaints, complaints which have confused Complainant with Respondent (Complaint, Annex 17). Such complaints resulted in at least one lawsuit by the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, freezing Respondent’s assets (Complaint, Annex 18).

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to trademarks in which Complainant has rights that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of the following:

1) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and,

2) that the respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain names all consist of Complainant’s OUTRIGGER mark and the addition of other words or phrases descriptive of the services offered by Complainant as well as elements of Complainant’s OUTRIGGER RESORT CLUB marks. The addition in a domain name of words or phrases descriptive of the goods or services with which the mark is used to the mark itself may constitute confusing similarity. Forte (UK) Limited v. Eugenio Ceschel, WIPO Case No. D2000-0283 (<fortehotels.com); The Chase Manhattan Corporation v. Jehovah Technologies Pte Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2000-0388 (<chasemanhattancorp.com). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to service marks in which Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The consensus view of WIPO panelists concerning the burden of establishing no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name is as follows:

“While the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore a complainant is required to make out an initial prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.” WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Section 2.1.

In the present case Complainant has, in the Panel’s view, demonstrated sufficient evidence to make such prima facie showing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names and Respondent has failed to assert any such rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Respondent has been using the disputed domain names to resolve to web sites which advertise services directly competitive with those offered by Complainant. Moreover Respondent’s web sites contain numerous and repeated references to Complainant, its properties, and its services, including links to Complainant’s web sites. Moreover, Respondent’s business practices have been the subject of a lawsuit filed by a government agency for unfair business practices, and consumers complaining about such conduct have confused Respondent with Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain names, <outriggervactionclubs.com>, <outriggervacationclubonline.com> and <outriggervactationclubpro.com> be transferred to Complainant.

M. Scott Donahey
Sole Panelist
Dated: September 23, 2010

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