Complainants are Accor and SoLuxury HMC of Paris, France, represented by Dreyfus & associes, France.
Respondent is Zeng Zheng of Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Guangdong JinWangBang Technology Investment Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 3, 2013. On September 3, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 6, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On September 11, 2013, the Center transmitted an email to the parties in both Chinese and English language regarding the language of the proceeding. On September 11, 2013, Complainants confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.
The Center verified that 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 18, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 8, 2013. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on October 9, 2013.
The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on October 23, 2013. 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
Complainants are Accor and its subsidiary SoLuxury HMC, French companies, that operate hotels and provide hospitality services worldwide. Complainants own two international trademark registrations for the mark SOFITEL in China, registered in 2005 and 2007. Complainants own the domain names and . Complainants operate a website at “www.”, through which Internet users can find and book hotels.
Respondent in this matter, according to the Registrar of the disputed domain name, is Zeng Zheng. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 12, 2012. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants
Complainants argue (1) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainants have rights, (2) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and (3) that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Complainants argue that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainants’ well-known SOFITEL mark because the disputed domain name fully incorporates the SOFITEL mark. Complainants further argue that the addition of the geographical term “Guangzhou” does not serve to differentiate use of the disputed domain name from Complainants’ mark.
Complainants assert that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, noting that Respondent has not received permission, license, or authorization from Complainants, the owners of the SOFITEL mark, to use that mark. Complainants further assert that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to host a website that offers to book hotel rooms of Complainants’ competitors.
Complainants assert that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, given the international reputation of Complainants’ mark and the fact that Complainants operate a hotel named the “Sofitel Guangzhou Sunrich Hotel”. Complainants assert that in light of Complainants’ mark, and Respondent’s reproduction of that mark in its entirety, Respondent’s actions suggest opportunistic bad faith. Complainants further argue that the redirecting of Internet users to a counterfeiting website containing an unauthorized presentation of the Sofitel Guangzhou Sunrich Hotel and an online booking service evidences bad faith use of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
Respondent did not respond to Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Language of the Decision
The language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Complainants have requested that English be the language of the proceeding. Respondent has not commented regarding the language of the proceeding. Complainants argue that the registration of the disputed domain name using Latin characters indicates Respondent’s familiarity with languages other than Chinese and that English is a common international language. Complainants also note that “Sofitel” has no meaning in Chinese. In light of the above, and Respondent’s failure to respond in this proceeding, the Panel concludes that English should be the language of the proceeding. B. Standard for UDRP Proceedings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed, Complainants must prove each of the following:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainants have rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain names has been registered and is being used in bad faith. C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The inclusion of the entire SOFITEL mark within the disputed domain name militates strongly against Respondent. “In most cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, then the domain name will for the purposes of the Policy be confusingly similar to that mark.” Research in Motion Ltd. v. One Star Global LLC,WIPO Case No. D2009-0227. Here, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainants’ registered trademarks. Moreover, the strength of the SOFITEL marks, and its registration in China where Respondent is located per the WhoIs data, supports Complainants’ contention that any use of the disputed domain name would lead to confusion. Further, Respondent’s inclusion of the term “Guangzhou” brings the already confusingly similar domain name even closer to the name of an actual hotel operated by Complainants, the Sofitel Guangzhou Sunrich Hotel.
The Panel concludes that Complainants have satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainants’ SOFITEL marks. D. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that no evidence exists in the record to indicate that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the word “sofitel”. Further, no evidence exists in the record to indicate that Respondent has any association or affiliation with Complainants in the form of a license, permission, or authorization to use the SOFITEL mark. Further still, Respondent appears to be using the disputed domain name to divert Internet users away from Complainants and instead to Complainants’ competitors. Complainants have thus presented a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted that prima facie case.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainants have satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainants’ trademark is well known internationally and registered specifically in China, the home country of Respondent. That fact, combined with Respondent’s confusingly similar use of Complainants’ mark in its entirety suggests that Respondent likely knew of Complainants’ mark when Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which suggests opportunistic bad faith. Accordingly, and in the absence of any good faith explanation of Respondent’s action, the Panel finds that Complainants have established that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. Further, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website that offers an online hotel booking service in direct competition to Complainants evidences bad faith use.
Complainants have established that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and have satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainants.
Kimberley Chen Nobles
Sole Panelist
Date: November 6, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy