Sandals Resorts International 2000 Inc. v Privacy service provided by

WIPO Case No. D2022-2639

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Sandals Resorts International 2000 Inc. v. Privacy service provided by
Withheld for Privacy ehf / Kameila Ricketts

Case No. D2022-2639

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Sandals Resorts International 2000 Inc., Panama, represented by Dechert, United

Kingdom.

The Respondent is Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Kameila Ricketts,

Jamaica.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <sandalresortairportshuttle.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 19, 2022. On July 20, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 20, 2022, 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 July 22, 2022, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 27, 2022.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 28, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5,
the due date for Response was August 17, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 19, 2022.

page 2

The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on August 26, 2022. 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 operates resorts in the Caribbean and its services are well known because of the extensive
efforts undertaken by the Complainant to promote the Complainant’s “all-inclusive” resort services. The
Complainant owns the trademark SANDALS which it has registered in several countries, including the United
States of America (Reg. No. 1,614,295 registered on September 18, 1990). According to the WhoIs records,
the disputed domain name was registered on April 30, 2022. The Respondent has used the disputed
domain name to display a website consisting of a directory of pay-per-click links, and the website includes, or
has included, links using terms that are identical to the services covered by the Complainant’s trademark
registrations for the SANDALS mark and the services for which the Complainant has developed substantial

goodwill and reputation under that mark.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

This first element under the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and,

second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.

A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark
certificate belong to its respective owner. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde
Nast S.A. v. Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the
SANDALS mark by providing evidence of its trademark registrations.

The disputed domain name incorporates the SANDALS mark (merely omitting the letter “s”) with the words “resort,” “airport,” and “shuttle,” which do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s SANDALS mark. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The

page 3

SANDALS mark remains sufficiently recognizable for a showing of confusing similarity under the Policy.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met this first element under the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent (with the burden of proof always remaining with the Complainant). See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1; AXA SA v. Huade Wang, WIPO Case No. D2022-1289.

On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: (1) it has not authorized the Respondent to use the SANDALS mark in the disputed domain name, (2) use of the SANDALS mark in the disputed domain name is not a noncommercial or fair use, (3) the Respondent has not been known by the SANDALS

trademark, and (4) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide
offering of goods or services. Instead, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to establish a
website that publishes pay-per-click links.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required prima facie showing. The Respondent has not presented evidence to overcome this prima facie showing. And nothing in the record otherwise tilts the balance in the Respondent’s favor.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this second element under the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Because the SANDALS mark is so well known, it is implausible to believe that the Respondent was not aware of it when it registered the disputed domain name. In the circumstances of this case, the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith registration of the disputed domain name. Bad faith use is further shown from the Respondent’s activities of using the disputed domain name to present pay-per-click links for commercial gain. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully met this third element.

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 <sandalresortairportshuttle.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Evan D. Brown/
Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: September 11, 2022