A one member panel just denied Orbitz USRP on the domain name orbbitz.com

Orbitz was represented by CitizenHawk, Inc and according to the panel they did a poor job of pleading its case in which case the respondent didn’t even both to respond.

The domain name was registered since January 31, 2002 and appears to never have resolved.

However the complainant only argued that since the domain resolved to an inactive site (or didn’t resolve) that fact alone is bad faith and should carry the day for the trademark holder

“”Complainant argues Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to an empty page featuring no substantive content or links. The website located at Respondent’s <orbbitz.com> is a blank, white page.”

” Respondent has failed to make an active use of the disputed domain name, which means Respondent is certainly not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy.”

“While Respondent has had the owned the domain name since January 31, 2002, it apparently hasn’t used it at all.  If the web site isn’t used at all, Respondent could not have acquired any rights to the domain name.”

Complainant claims Respondent’s disputed domain name currently resolves to an inactive site and that alone constitutes bad faith registration and use.”

“That alone isn’t enough.”

“Complainant argues Respondent’s disputed domain name is a classic example of typosquatting.”

“The Policy does not mention typosquatting as a ground for finding bad faith registration and use.

“Did Complainant assert Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant for more than Respondent paid?

No.
Did Complainant asset Respondent registered the domain name to prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name and Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct?

No.

Did Complainant assert Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor?

No.

Did Complainant assert Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark?

No.

Why didn’t Complainant make these arguments?

This Panel does not know.

This Panel is loath to make an argument for a party, especially one represented by an experienced representative.  To make these arguments would require the Panel to assume facts not in evidence.

Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proof of bad faith registration and use under Policy

Respondent has not registered or used the domain name in bad faith if Respondent has not violated any of the factors listed in Policy ¶4(b) or engaged in any other conduct that would constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii).

The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) NOT satisfied.