Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v James Ybarra, Name Redacted

WIPO Case No. D2025-0123

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. James Ybarra, Name Redacted

Case No. D2025-0123

1. The Parties

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

Respondent is James Ybarra, Name Redacted, United States.1

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The Disputed Domain Name <intercontinental-hotels-group.com> is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 14, 2025. On January 15, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On January 16, 2025, 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 (Whois Privacy Protection Foundation) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on January 16, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on January 16, 2025.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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”).

1Respondent appears to have used the name of an unrelated organization when registering the Disputed Domain Name. In light of the

potential identity theft, the Panel has partially redacted Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the Disputed Domain Name, which includes the name of Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has

indicated Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A.
v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 6, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the

Center notified Respondent’s default on February 7, 2025.

The Center appointed Richard W. Page as the sole panelist in this matter on February 12, 2025. 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 one of a number of companies collectively known as InterContinental Hotel Group (“IHG”), one of the world’s largest hotel groups. Companies within IHG own, manage, lease, or franchise, through various subsidiaries, 6,505 hotels and 968,112 guest rooms in about 100 countries and territories around the

world. IHG owns a portfolio of well-recognized and respected hotel brands, including InterContiental Hotels voco Hotels; and also manages one of the world’s largest hotel loyalty programs, IHG One Rewards.
& Resorts; Holiday Inn Hotels; Holiday Inn Express Hotels; Holiday Inn Club Vacations; Crowne Plaza
Hotels & Resorts; Staybridge Suites; Candlewood Suites; Hotel Indigo; Six Senses Hotels, Resorts &

Complainant’s InterContinental Hotels & Resorts brand is used in connection with 226 hotels and 73,590 guest rooms in the Americas, Europe, Middle East, Africa, Asia and Greater China.

Complainant (or its affiliates) own at least 404 registrations in at least 168 countries or geographic regions
worldwide for the word trademarks that consist of or contain the name “InterContinental” (the
“INTERCONTINENTAL Mark”), including but not limited to the following:

United States Registration No. 890,271 for INTERCONTINENTAL registered April 28, 1970 for use in connection with “hotel services”;

United Kingdom Registration No. 1277670 for INTER.CONTINENTAL registered April 27, 1990 for use in connection with “hotel services”; and

European Union Registration No. 002787646 for INTERNCONTEINENTAL registered June 14, 2006 for use in connection with, inter alia, “hotel and motel services.”

Complainant (via IHG) is the registrant of numerous domain names, that contain or are similar to the
INTERCONTINENTAL Mark, including <intercontinental.com> registered July 30, 1997.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on December 24, 2024, resolves to a website which falsely appears to be a website for, or otherwise, associated with, Complainant. Respondent has established mail exchange (MX) records as a basis for the issuance of email addresses.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that previous panels under the Policy have found that Complainant has rights in and to the INTERCONITENTAL Mark, one of which said that “INTERCONTINENTAL is a well-known mark, at least in relation to hotels.” Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. James, dsgn factory, WIPO Case No. D2011-2046.

page 3

Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar because it contains the entirety of the INTERCONTINENTAL Mark simply replacing spaces with hyphens, plus adding the descriptive words “hotels” and “group”.

Complainant submits that it has never assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred or in any way authorized
Respondent to register or use the INTERCONTINENTAL Mark in any manner. Consequently, Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name given there exists no relationship between
Complainant and Respondent that would give rise to any license, permission, or authorization by which

Respondent could own or use the Disputed Domain Name.

Complainant further submits that 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.

Complainant further submits that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a
website that falsely appears to be a website for, or associated with, Complainant, by promoting
“InterContinental Hotels,” including a hotel “[r]ising 36 stories above the pulse and pageantry of Times
Square … in Midtown Manhattan’s Theater District” where Complainant has an actual InterContinental hotel.
Respondent’s website using the Disputed Domain Name copies (without permission) a photograph from

Complainant’s own website for its InterContinental New York Times Square hotel.

Complainant further submits that Respondent cannot establish rights or legitimate interests by the illegal and
illegitimate activity of impersonation/passing off. Complainant further submits that such actions cannot be
considered a bona fide offering of good and services or considered a legitimate use of the Disputed Domain
Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition

(“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.13.

Complainant further submits that at least one security vendor has reported that the Disputed Domain Name
is associated with malicious activities, according to a report from VirusTotal, a service that analyzes files and
URLs for viruses, worms, trojans, and other kinds of malicious content.

Complainant further submits that Respondent has established MX records for the Disputed Domain Name, enabling Respondent to send and receive email with addresses that use the Disputed Domain Name, thus creating a strong possibility of a fraudulent phishing scheme.

Complainant alleges that, given the fame of the INTERCONTINENTAL Mark and Complainant’s significant presence, it is implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant when he registered the Disputed Domain Name.

Complainant further alleges that it and its related Companies (including Six Continents Hotels, Inc.) have prevailed in numerous proceedings under the Policy involving the INTERCONTINENTAL Mark, including (among many other decisions) the largest UDRP complaint ever filed, which resulted in a decision ordering

the transfer of 1,519 domain names to Complainant, many of which contained the INTERCONTINENTAL
Mark. See Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation, Six Continents Hotels v. Daniel Kirchhof, WIPO Case No.
D2009-1661.

In the amendment to the Complaint, Complainant requests the Center to redact Respondent’s company name, as “[it] is not actually the name of the registrant of the Disputed Domain Name” and “Respondent has selected this name when it registered the Disputed Domain Name purely as a pretext for its cybersquatting activities”.

Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the
Disputed Domain Name.

page 4

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 in accordance with the Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”

Even though Respondent has failed to file a Response or to contest Complainant’s assertions, the Panel will review the evidence proffered by Complainant to verify that the three essential elements of the claims are met. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.3.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following three essential elements:

i)         that the Disputed Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the

mark in which Complainant has rights; and,

ii)	that 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

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1 states that registration of the INTERCONTINENTAL Mark is prima facie evidence of Complainant having enforceable rights.

Complainant has shown rights in respect of the INTERCONTINENTAL Mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the INTERCONTINENTAL Mark and the Disputed Domain Name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The entirety of the INTERCONTINENTAL Mark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name. purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms, here “hotels” and “group,” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the INTERCONTINENTAL Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy allows three nonexclusive methods for the Panel to conclude that Respondent has rights or a legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name:

page 5

(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the
Disputed Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name,
without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the INTERCONTINENTAL
Mark at issue.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on Complainant, panels have recognized that proving Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of Respondent. As such, where Complainant makes out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name (although the burden of proof always remains on Complainant). If Respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here claimed to be
impersonation/passing off can never confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth four nonexclusive criteria for Complainant to show bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name:

(i) circumstances indicating that you [Respondent] have registered or you have acquired the Disputed
Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain
Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or to a competitor of Complainant, for
valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed

Domain Name; or

(ii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the
trademark from reflecting it in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of

such conduct; or

(iii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the

business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the Disputed Domain Name, you [Respondent] have intentionally attempted to attract, for
commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion
with Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or
location or of a product on your website or location.

page 6

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

In the present case, the Panel notes that Complainant has established the necessary elements of paragraph
4(b)(iv) of the Policy by intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a
likelihood of confusion with the INTERCONTINENTAL Mark.

Panels have held that the use of the Disputed Domain Name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed to be impersonation/passing off constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain

Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel finds that Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

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 <intercontinental-hotels-group.com> be transferred to the

Complainant.

/Richard W. Page/
Richard W. Page
Sole Panelist
Date: February 19, 2025