Complainant is Rotana Hotel Management Corporation of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, represented by Saba & Co. IP, Lebanon.
Respondent is Muqthar, Logicnodes Enterprises of Muscat, Oman. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 29, 2016. On December 29, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 30, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 7, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 27, 2017. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 28, 2017.
The Center appointed Stephanie G. Hartung as the sole panelist in this matter on March 2, 2017. 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.
On behalf of the Panel, the Center issued Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1 on March 7, 2017, requesting Complainant to provide translated copies of the trademark certificates submitted as Annexes to the Complaint. Complainant replied thereto on March 9, 2017. 4. Factual Background
Complainant is a hotel management company with legal domicile in Abu Dhabi. Complainant has submitted evidence that it is the owner of numerous trademarks worldwide relating to the designation “Rotana” including the following, which enjoy protection in Oman:
- Word-/device mark ROTANA HOTELS INNS SUITES, Sultanate of Oman Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Registration No. 17235, Registration Date: November 6, 2002, Status: Active;
- Word-/device mark ROTANA, Sultanate of Oman Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Registration No. 48013, Registration Date: February 9, 2009, Status: Active;
- Word-/device mark ROTANA, Sultanate of Oman Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Registration No. 48014, Registration Date: May 31, 2009, Status: Active.
Furthermore, Complainant has evidenced to be the owner of numerous domain names incorporating its ROTANA trademark, including since October 11, 2010.
Respondent is domiciled in Oman. The disputed domain name was registered on January 2, 2015. As of the time of the rendering of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a website at “www.” promoting the related business and services of a Rotana Muscat Hotel located in Muscat, Oman.
Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends to be one of the leading hotel management companies with hotels in all countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (“GCC”) and other countries of the Middle East, including in Oman. With 55 properties in 26 cities worldwide, Rotana Hotels are now considered as belonging to the most famous hotels in the world. Accordingly, Complainant’s ROTANA trademark and brand name meanwhile belong to the most well-known trademarks worldwide.
Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROTANA trademark as it incorporates the latter in its entirety in association with the descriptive terms “hotel” and “muscat”. Moreover, Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name, since Respondent has neither been authorized to make use of Complainant’s trademark nor has there ever been any business relationship between the parties whatsoever. Moreover, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. On the contrary, Complainant has already prevailed in a court action initiated in 2014 against the hotel company promoted through the website under the disputed domain name to cease and desist any use of the ROTANA trademark on Respondent’s premises. Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s ROTANA trademark along with the terms “hotel” and “muscat” which clearly shows that Respondent is seeking to obtain commercial benefit by attracting Internet users to the website at “www.” promoting Respondent’s own hotel in Oman. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant carries the burden of proving:
(i) That the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) That the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Respondent’s default in the case at hand does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant, however, paragraph 5(f) of the Rules provides that if Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel may decide the dispute solely based upon the Complaint. Further, the Panel may draw such inferences as are appropriate from Respondent’s failure to submit a Response. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ROTANA trademark in which Complainant has rights.
It has become a consensus view among panelists (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 1.2), that the application of the confusing similarity test under the UDRP will typically involve a straight forward visual or oral comparison of the concerned trademark with the alphanumeric string in the disputed domain name and that the test is satisfied if the relevant trademark would generally be recognizable as such therein. Also, there is consent that the applicable generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) in a disputed domain name would usually be disregarded under the identity or confusing similarity test (see again: WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 1.2). In the case at hand, Complainant has demonstrated it owns rights in various word-/device marks, all of which contain the term “Rotana” and at least some in which the term “Rotana” is the most dominant of all word and device elements. Given that the disputed domain name incorporates the distinctive element “Rotana” in many of Complainant’s ROTANA trademarks, it may be found that Complainant’s ROTANA trademarks are easily recognizable as such in the disputed domain name.
Therefore, Complainant has established the first element under the Policy set forth by paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel is further convinced on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed contentions, that Respondent has not made use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor has Respondent been commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor can it be found that Respondent has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof without intent for commercial gain.
Respondent has not been authorized to use Complainant’s ROTANA trademark, either as a domain name or in any other way. Also, there is no reason to believe that Respondent’s name somehow corresponds with the disputed domain name and Respondent does not appear to have any trademark rights associated with the name “Rotana”. Finally, Respondent has not used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair purpose. On the contrary, Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a website at “www.” in order to promote the business and services of a hotel named “Rotana Muscat” which is clearly in direct competition to Complainant’s own hotels located in many countries especially in the Middle East, including in Oman.
Accordingly, Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. Having done so, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating to the contrary (see WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.1). Given that Respondent has defaulted, Respondent has not met that burden.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has also satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) and, thus, the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finally holds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
The use of the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROTANA trademark, to resolve to a website at “www.” promoting the business and services of a hotel which is in direct competition to Complainant’s own hotels, is a clear indication that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s ROTANA trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Such circumstances are evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
In this context, the Panel has also taken into account that – on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed contentions – Complainant has already prevailed in a court action initiated in 2014 against the hotel company promoted through the website under the disputed domain name to cease and desist any use of the ROTANA trademark on Respondent’s premises. This clearly indicates that Respondent – irrespective of the fame of Complainant’s ROTANA trademark in Oman and throughout the world – was fully aware of Complainant’s ROTANA trademark rights when registering and starting to use the disputed domain name on January 2, 2015.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has also satisfied the third element under the Policy as set forth by paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 Complainant.
Stephanie G. Hartung
Sole Panelist
Date: March 14, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy