WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION G6 Hospitality IP, LLC. v. WHOIS AGENT, NameSilo, LLC / Erkmen Altun Case No. D2018-2847 1. The Parties

The Complainant is G6 Hospitality IP, LLC of Carrollton, Texas, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Johnson & Martin, P.A., United States.

The Respondent is WhoIs Agent, NameSilo, LLC of Phoenix, Arizona, United States / Erkmen Altun of Ankara, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 12, 2018. On December 13, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On December 13, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 14, 2018, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 18, 2018.

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 December 19, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 8, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 9, 2019.

The Center appointed Nick J. Gardner as the sole panelist in this matter on January 14, 2019. 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 relevant facts are straightforward and can be summarized very briefly as follows.

The Complainant operates a chain of economy hotels and motels in North America under various brand names including “Motel 6” and “Studio 6”. It opened its first “Motel 6” in 1962 and began operation of its first “Studio 6” hotel in 1998 in the United States. Under the “Motel 6” and the “Studio 6” brands, the Complainant now owns, operates and franchises more than 1,400 economy hotels, including locations in 49 states and 5 provinces in Canada and employs more than 10,000 individuals in the United States and Canada.

The Complainant has obtained international trademark protection for its “Studio 6”, “Studio 6 Extended Stay”, “6”, “Estudio 6”, “Hotel 6” and “Motel 6” brands in the United States and in various countries for hotel services. For the purpose of this Complaint, the STUDIO 6 EXTENDED STAY trademark is most relevant – see by way of example United States registration No 2495770, registered on October 9, 2001. The Complainant’s trademarks for these words are referred to in this decision as the STUDIO 6 EXTENDED STAY trademark.

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on September 3, 2018. It links to a “parking page” where it is offered for sale for USD 950. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant says that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the STUDIO 6 EXTENDED STAY trademark in that it simply substitutes a “9” for a “6” which is a minor variation and easily confused or misremembered.

The Complainant says that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the term “Studio 6 Extended Stay” or “Studio 9 Extended Stay”.

The Complainant says that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name is in bad faith. It says it was clearly chosen as a deliberate variation of the Complainant’s name or trademark. The Complainant refers to various previous UDRP decisions as to the deliberate registration of a variation of another person’s trademark in this regard. B. Respondent

No Response has been filed. 6. Discussion and Findings Preliminary Matters

The Panel notes that no communication has been received from the Respondent. However given the Complaint and Written Notice were sent to the relevant addresses disclosed by the Registrar, the Panel considers that this satisfies the requirement in paragraph 2(a) of the UDRP Rules to “employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice”. Accordingly, the Panel considers it is able to proceed to determine this Complaint and to draw inferences from the Respondent’s failure to file any Response. While the Respondent’s failure to file a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default (see, e.g., Verner Panton Design v. Fontana di Luce Corp,WIPO Case No. D2012-1909).

The Panel also notes this is a case where one Respondent (“WHOIS AGENT, NameSilo, LLC”) appears t