Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-2312
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:28:39+00:00

Document:
Complainant is Mastercard International Incorporated, of Purchase, New York, United States of America, of United States of America, represented by Partridge IP Law P.C., United States of America.
Respondent is Education, Ersin Namli, of Istanbul, Turkey.
The disputed domain name <pricelessistanbul.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 17, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 6, 2012. On January 20, 2012, Respondent sent an email communication to the Center in which Respondent sought further information regarding the course of the proceedings. On the same date, the Center acknowledged receipt of Respondent’s email communication and provided information relative to the course of the proceedings. No formal response to the Complaint was filed by Respondent, however. Therefore, on February 7, 2012, the Center notified the parties the commencement of panel appointment process.
The disputed domain name was registered September 29, 2011 and routes to a parking page displaying link advertising to third-party websites covering a variety of products and services.2 Some of the links route to web pages offering hotel, restaurant and tour reservations and discounts.
Complainant alleges that it has made extensive use for several years of the PRICELESS and PRICELESS.COM trademarks and that therefore the marks are famous. 3 Attached to the Complaint are copies of limited promotional materials making use of the trademarks, including an advertising campaign entitled “Priceless New York.” The Complaint also appends several pages from its Turkish website, some of which relate to Complainant’s rights in the PRICELESS family of marks.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name <pricelessistanbul.com> is confusingly similar to its PRICELESS mark because it wholly incorporates the mark and adds only a geographic term. Complainant points out that previous UDRP panels have held that the addition of a geographic term generally does not reduce confusing similarity resulting from the inclusion of a Complainant’s mark.
Ignoring the generic top-level domain “.com”, the disputed domain name consists of the PRICELESS mark, adding only the geographical term “Istanbul.” The Panel recognizes that the mere addition of a geographical term to another’s mark is normally not sufficient to avoid confusion. See, e.g., Viceroy Hotels, L.L.C. , Kor Cayman Ltd. v. Mr. Syed Hussain, WIPO Case No. D2009-0962 (“Consistent with previous decision the Panel agrees that the addition of a city name to Complainants’ trademarks does not alter the confusion between Complainants’ marks and the disputed domain name that Internet users would experience.”).
Indeed, this Panel believes that Complainant’s marks and the disputed domain name may create readily distinguishable commercial impressions. Given the nature of the terms at issue and that the marks exist in a crowded field, the Panel might conceivably conclude that Complainant’s marks can coexist with the disputed domain name without a very high likelihood of creating confusion. See Pinnacle Intellectual Property v. World Wide Exports, WIPO Case No. D2005-1211. It is also the case that many panels have applied a test for confusing similarity which does not call for any likelihood of Internet confusion as such. See e.g. the range of views discussed in Apple Inc. v. Fred Bergstrom, LottaCarlsson, Georges Chaloux and Marina Bianchi, WIPO Case No. D2011-1388.
The record shows that the website to which the disputed domain name routes displays commercial links to third parties offering goods and services. The Panel agrees with Complainant that it is fair to infer that Respondent receives revenue when users click through the links displayed on the parking page to which the disputed domain name routes. E.g., The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. v. Darryl Pope, WIPO Case No. D2007-0593 (“[t]he Panel is free to infer that Respondent is likely receiving some pecuniary benefit in consideration of directing traffic to that site” (citing COMSAT Corporation v. Ronald Isaacs, WIPO Case No. D2004-1082). See Fat Face Holdings Ltd v. Belize Domain WHOIS Service Lt, WIPO Case No. D2007-0626; Sanofi-aventis v. Montanya Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2006-1079. Therefore the Panel rules that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial, bona fide, or fair use of the disputed domain name.
Complainant’s claim that the disputed domain name is used in bad faith is largely based on Complainant’s allegation that Respondent’s parking page website displays links to competitors of Complainant. The presence of commercial links to competitors of a complainant is often accepted as evidence of bad faith use in UDRP proceedings. See, e.g., mVisible Technologies, Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Sys., Inc., WIPO Case No. D2007-1141; Pfizer Inc. v. jg a/k/a Josh Green, WIPO Case No. D2004-0784 (citing Google, Inc v. wwwgoogle.com and Jimmy Siavesh Behain, WIPO Case No. D2000-1240; Casio Keisanki Kabushiki (Casio Computer Co., Ltd.) v. Jongchan Kim, WIPO Case No. D2003-0400). If the Complaint here clearly demonstrated that the website to which the disputed domain name routes displays links to competitors, that would be one piece of evidence supporting a finding of use in bad faith in this proceeding. However, unlike in some earlier cases in which Complainant was apparently able to point to such evidence of competitor links (See e.g. MasterCard International Incorporated v. Paul Barbell, WIPO Case No. D2007-1139), it is not evident from the record provided in this case.
In a general sense, therefore, one could say that there is competition between the parties because at some point in time both have displayed websites with links to third parties offering hotel, restaurant, and tour reservations and related discounts. The Panel considers this to be relevant to the question of bad faith. However, the confirmation that this apparent competition exists between the parties through the two web sites using the term “priceless” does not fully answer the question whether the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith.
The Panel observes that most links to commercial web sites that appear throughout the Internet fall within the quoted trademark claim, because they “[p]romote the goods and services of others . . . through electronic links to merchant and retailer web sites….”. In the Panel’s view, under the circumstances, to infer bad faith use on the basis of competition with Complainant from the display of links on a website “promoting the goods and services of others,” without more, is not merited. Such an inference would mean that bad faith use would be established for virtually any website displaying commercial links if the website’s domain name was confusingly similar to Complainant’s PRICELESS family of marks. As noted above, the Panel has already found that “priceless” is a descriptive terms, one that also appears as a term in registered trademarks by a large number of third party trademark holders in addition to Complainant.
The sole evidence of circumstances bearing upon bad faith use in this proceeding consists of the display of some competitive links - to hotels, restaurants, and tours - on both parties’ respective web sites. In the Panel’s view, this evidence is too slender a reed to support the weight of the conclusion that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel concludes therefore that the Complaint fails to establish the requirements of Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).
3 The Panel notes that Complainant chooses to make no reference to its recent United States applications for the marks PRICELESS NEW YORK, PRICELESS MIAMI (filing date on September 1, 2011) and PRICELESS CITY (filing date on October 14, 2011). The Panel therefore will not consider the potential implications of these pending trademark registrations in the present proceeding.
4 Both bad faith use and bad faith registration must be established for Complainant to prevail under the Policy. E.g., E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Hanna Law Firm, WIPO Case No. D2000-0615.
5 In the table of 19 United States trademark registrations appended to the Complaint, no registrations are described as relating to hotel reservations, restaurant coupons and tours. The Panel has undertaken limited research on the United States Patent and Trademark Office database, and finds that Complainant recently applied for registration of the mark PRICELESS in International Class 35, in association with hotel and travel reservations. That application was not lodged until October 2011.
6 The Panel notes that the Complaint does not authenticate this evidence or indicate when its Turkish website displayed the hotel and restaurant links, factors that might bear upon the definition of the scope of Complainant’s business activities for purposes of the Panel making findings regarding competition and the question of bad faith by Respondent. The URL shown at the bottom of the relevant web pages allegedly reproduced in Exhibit E presently generates error messages.
7 The hazard of embracing such a sweeping conclusion involving Complainant’s descriptive marks is not academic. Complainant has also filed a similar UDRP proceeding against a different respondent, involving that respondent’s parking page and based on the same marks of Complainant, concurrently pending before this Panel. In that proceeding, the Panel reaches a result consistent with this ruling. See Mastercard International Incorporated v. Wesley Wobles, WIPO Case No. D2011-2311 (transfer denied for lack of evidence of bad faith use in light of the circumstances).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.