WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico Case No. D2019-2049 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., United States of America, represented by Sanchez Fischer Levine, LLP, United States of America.

The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama. 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 August 21, 2019. On August 22, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 23, 2019, 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 August 26, 2019, 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 August 27, 2019.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 August 30, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 19, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 20, 2019.

The Center appointed Antony Gold as the sole panelist in this matter on October 2, 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 Complainant is a cruise line operator, which is based in Miami, Florida, United States of America. It has used the service mark ROYAL CARIBBEAN in commerce since January 1970 and this mark was first registered in June 1986.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 22, 2019. Attempts by Internet users to visit the website at the disputed domain name take them to a third party website, with in the “.pw” country code Top Level Domain (“ccTLD”), which may be used for commercial web services. This contains solely a notice advising those visiting the website that their version of a well-known proprietary software program is out of date and inviting them to update it directly from the website in order to continue. The Complainant says that the program available for download is malware. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant says that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a service mark in which it has rights. It is the proprietor of a service mark for ROYAL CARIBBEAN namely United States Trademark, registration no. 1,397,148 for ROYAL CARIBBEAN, registered on June 10,1986 in international trade mark class 39.

The disputed domain name is an exact reproduction of the Complainant’s service mark save for the addition of a letter “t” after the “r” in CARIBBEAN. Such an addition does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. See, for example The Bonita Bay Group, Inc. et al. v. Total Concept, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0126.

The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name many years after the Complainant had registered its ROYAL CARIBBEAN service mark and long after the Complainant began using its service mark in commerce.

ROYAL CARIBBEAN is an inherently distinctive term which serves to identify the Complainant as a source of certain products and services. The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor is the Respondent otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s ROYAL CARIBBEAN mark for any purpose, nor is it commonly known as “”. Accordingly, it has not established rights or an interest in the disputed domain name. Moreover, the disputed domain name currently automatically redirects Internet users to a website which invites them to download malware.

Lastly, the Complainant says that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out, without limitation, four circumstances in which bad faith registration and use will be found. The circumstance set out at paragraph 4(b)(iv) is if a complainant can establish that by using the domain name, a respondent attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as the source of the website or a product or service on it.

Previous UDRP panels have confirmed that the overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant is seeking to profit from and exploit the trade mark of another (see, for example, Rockstar Games v. Texas International Property Associates,WIPO Case No. D2007-0501). The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to profit from and exploit the Complainant’s ROYAL CARIBBEAN trademark and to misdirect Internet users to its own website. It is also using the disputed domain name in