WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Alberto Antonio Rincon Toribio Case No. D2018-2305 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, Ltd. of Miami, Florida, United States of America (“USA”), represented by Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP, USA.

The Respondent is Alberto Antonio Rincon Toribio of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 10, 2018. On October 11, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 12, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On October 17, 2018, the Complainant submitted an amended Complaint.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 18, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 7, 2018. On October 18, 2018 and October 19, 2018, the Respondent submitted two informal emails. On October 22, 2018, the Center notified the Parties that if they wish to explore settlement options, the Complainant should submit a request for suspension by October 29, 2018. The Complainant did not request for suspension. The Respondent did not submit a formal Response by the specified due date. On November 8, 2018, the Center notified the Parties that it would proceed with panel appointment process.

The Center appointed Manuel Moreno-Torres as the sole panelist in this matter on November 12, 2018. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the owner of the ROYAL CARIBBEAN trademark in the USA with registration number 1,397,148 and registered on June 10, 1986. However, the trademark has been in use since 1970 in connection to travel cruises.

The disputed domain name was registered on September 3, 2018. The disputed domain name resolved to a website in connection to travel vacation services. The Respondent suspended the website to which the disputed domain name directed once the Complaint was received. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name fully incorporates the ROYAL CARIBBEAN mark with the addition of a generic word, that is to say “solutions”. Such an addition does not affect a finding of identity or confusing similarity to the Complainant´s trademark in the terms of the Policy.

With regard the second element, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor the Respondent has been otherwise authorized to use ROYAL CARIBBEAN mark for any purpose. Further, the Respondent is not commonly known as “royalcaribbeansolutions”.

The Complainant also points out that the disputed domain name directs users to a website for vacation travel services while the Complainant provides travel services related to cruises.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Indeed, the Respondent knowingly registered the disputed domain name of a well-known trademark to capitalize on consumer recognition of the ROYAL CARIBBEAN mark. Such a recognition and distinctiveness makes unlikely that the Respondent devised the term “royalcaribbeansolutions” on its own.

The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent is using in bad faith the ROYAL CARIBBEAN trademark when providing a memorandum to customers in an attempt to pass off or decei