TripAdvisor, brought a UDRP on two domain names, tripadvosor.com and trpadvisor.com and walked away winning one and losing the other
David A. Einhorn as Panelist awarded the domain name Trpadvisor.com to TripAdvisor but refused to hand the domain name tripadvosor.com over to the company.
The same person owned both domain name and didn’t bother filing an answer.
CitzenHawk represented TripAdvisor.
Tripadvosor.com was created on June 11, 2004 and tripadvisor.com was created on April 14, 2004.
Here are the highlights:
“”Complainant alleges that Respondent fails to use the trpadvisor.com domain name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the resolving website to host links to services that compete with Complainant.
On the other hand, Complainant’s sole argument that Respondent’s use of the domain name
does not meet the criteria of Policy ¶4(c)(i) and ¶4(c)(iii) is based upon its allegation of violation of an alleged affiliate agreement.
As indicated in the Findings section of this decision, the Panel does not accept Complainant’s unsubstantiated allegation of an affiliate agreement, as this Panel has provided Complainant with two additional opportunities to provide evidence of such an agreement.
Thus, Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) with respect to trpadvisor.com, but not with respect to tripadvosor.com.
Complainant alleges that Respondent uses the trpadvisor.com domain name to take advantage of the confusion of Internet users for financial gain. Complainant urges that Respondent’s disruptive use of the trpadvisor.com domain name, described above,is done for financial gain because Respondent presumably receives referral fees for hosting competitive links.
Further, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TRIP ADVISOR mark. Complainant argues that because of Respondent’s choice to create the two specific domain names in question, Respondent must have had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TRIP ADVISOR mark at the time of registration.
Finally, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and operates the disputed domain name in bad faith because it has engaged in typosquatting. Complainant urges that Respondent’s
and
domain names take advantage of typographical errors in the TRIP ADVISOR mark.
Thus, Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) with respect to both
and
.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy with respect to
, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED with respect to that domain.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the
domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Having not established the second element required under ICANN policy with respect to the
domain, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED with respect to that domain.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the
domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.””