JulienJ
Member
Ritz-Carlton complained that the domain, RitzCarltonYachtCollection.com, was registered just after the hotel announced its plans to offer luxury yacht experiences under the name The Ritz-Carlton Yacht Collection on June 22 2017.
The company did register the hyphenated version – Ritz-CarltonYachtCollection.com with CSC on the 23rd of June, however, they were too late to get the non-hyphenated version and filed for UDRP – Currently this domain name forwards RitzCarlton.com/en/yachts
Ritz-Carlton claims this “garnered immediate media attention and was widely publicised in print and online publications”.
The hotel said that the domain was “confusingly similar” to its Ritz-Carlton trademark and “almost entirely incorporates [Ritz-Carlton’s] new The Ritz-Carlton Yacht Collection trademark.
The registrant of the domain failed to submit a response to the panel.
Sole panellist Darryl Wilson said that the domain “contains [Ritz-Carlton’s] entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain”.
“The differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other.”
Wilson also found that the registrant had failed to actively use the domain name, proving that the registrant had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain.
Source
The company did register the hyphenated version – Ritz-CarltonYachtCollection.com with CSC on the 23rd of June, however, they were too late to get the non-hyphenated version and filed for UDRP – Currently this domain name forwards RitzCarlton.com/en/yachts
Ritz-Carlton claims this “garnered immediate media attention and was widely publicised in print and online publications”.
The hotel said that the domain was “confusingly similar” to its Ritz-Carlton trademark and “almost entirely incorporates [Ritz-Carlton’s] new The Ritz-Carlton Yacht Collection trademark.
The registrant of the domain failed to submit a response to the panel.
Sole panellist Darryl Wilson said that the domain “contains [Ritz-Carlton’s] entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain”.
“The differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other.”
Wilson also found that the registrant had failed to actively use the domain name, proving that the registrant had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain.
Source
