First Hotels AS of Oslo, Norway just lost a UDRP on the domain name FirstHotel.com which is owned by Klaudia Kruzicevic of Split, Croatia, who was represented by ESQwire.com, P. C.
The three member panel basically found that the domain holder did not buy the domain FirstHotel.com in bad faith but in support of its Internet based travel business she and her deceased husband started in 1999 operating many travel related websites including Cheaprooms.com, Cheaphotel.com, and Cheaphotels.com.
“The Complainant was established in 1993 and operates several hotels centrally located at selected destinations throughout Scandinavia.”
“The Complainant is registered owner of trademark registrations for FIRST HOTEL and FIRST HOTELS, namely Norwegian trademark registration no. 214709 FIRST HOTEL and device, applied for on February 7, 2001 and registered on June 20, 2002 in connection with services in classes 35, 36, 37, 39, 41 and 42; Norwegian trademark registration no. 214715 FIRST HOTEL, applied for on May 22, 2001 and registered on June 20, 2002 in connection with services in classes 35, 36, 37, 39, 41 and 42; and International trademark registration no. 949263 FIRST HOTELS, registered on November 1, 2007 in connection with services in classes 35, 36, 37, 39, 41 and 42 (the “Complainant’s Marks”).”
The disputed domain name was acquired by the Respondent’s husband from its prior owner on December 4, 2005 and was transferred to the Respondent’s control after her husband’s death in 2009.
The disputed domain name is used to forward Internet users to the Respondent’s website available at “Cheaprooms.com.
The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent on April 18, 2013, which remained unanswered.
She argues that the words “First Hotel” are generic and that the Complainant does not have exclusive trademark rights in the term “First Hotel”.
She states that a Google search for “First Hotel” yielded 1,010,000,000 results with the first two pages of results showing at least six third party hotels using the term “First Hotel”.
The Respondent further states that she has an incontestable right to the disputed domain name and has used the disputed domain name legitimately and in good faith. She argues that the UDRP and established trademark law support a “common sense” approach to the treatment, use, and protection of descriptive terms, which precludes the Complainant’s claim that the Respondent is not entitled to own the disputed domain name.
The Respondent contends that the disputed domain name was purchased in good faith from its prior owner solely because it included the generic term “hotel”, preceded by the laudatory term “first” and that the Complainant has set forth no evidence demonstrating otherwise or that it was targeted.…