The Complainant is Accor SA of Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, C/O ID#10760, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyP of Nobby Beach, Queensland, Australia / Yogesh Bhardwaj of Delhi, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with BigRock Solutions Pvt Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 26, 2017. On June 26, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 27, 2017, 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 June 30, 2017 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 July 4, 2017.
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 July 10, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 30, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response before this deadline and accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 5, 2017.
The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on August 10, 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 August 25, 2017, the Respondent submitted an email communication to the Center, which was forwarded to the Panel. Following this, the Panel instructed the Center to send a possible settlement email to the Parties, which was subsequently sent on August 28, 2017. The Complainant was given a two day period to submit a request for suspension in order to enter into a settlement agreement with the Respondent. The deadline for requesting suspension was set to August 30, 2017. On August 29, 2017, the Center received a second email communication from the Respondent, which was forwarded to the Panel. The Complainant did not submit a request for suspension and consequently, the Panel proceeded to issue its decision. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is Accor S.A., a French multinational hotel group, world leader in economic and mid-scale hotels and a major player in upscale and luxury hospitality services, operating more than 4,000 hotels in 95 countries worldwide, including chains such as PULLMAN, NOVOTEL, MERCURE and IBIS.
PULLMAN is the executive lifestyle upscale hotel brand, counting 119 hotels worldwide (including Australia) and more than 20,000 employees.
The Complainant is also present in India, where it also holds a PULLMAN hotel.
The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the marks PULLMAN, PULLMAN HOTELS and PULLMAN HOTELS AND RESORTS for hotel related services, among which are:
- International trademark registration No. 1197984 for PULLMAN, in class 43, registered on November 28, 2013 and designating India and Australia;
- International trademark registration No. 1188855 for PULLMAN HOTELS AND RESORTS + logo, in class 43, registered on October 10, 2013, designating India and Australia;
- European trademark registration No. 12038055 for PULLMAN HOTELS, in class 43, registered on December 26, 2013.
In addition to the above, the Complainant owns registrations of the domain names of March 21, 1999 and of May 7, 2007.
The disputed domain name was registered on November 11, 2016 and resolves to an inactive page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states that it owns trademark registrations in several jurisdictions for PULLMAN, PULLMAN HOTELS and PULLMAN HOTELS AND RESORTS, and that the disputed domain name reproduces its trademarks PULLMAN and PULLMAN HOTELS in their entirety.
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks and the inclusion of the generic term “online” increases the possibility of confusion by the consumers, since it implies the possibility of reserving hotel rooms on the Internet.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and it has not acquired any trademark rights related to the disputed domain name.
In addition, the Complainant alleges that an email server has been configurated on the disputed domain name and there is a high risk that the Respondent is engaged in a phishing scheme, which might deceive Internet users, who may incorrectly understand they are referred to the Complainant’s services.
The Complainant also mentions that the Respondent registered the domain name with a privacy shield service to hide his identity, preventing the Complainant from contacting him.
The Complainant asserts that a further indication of bad faith is the fact that the Complainant’s registrations preceded the registration of the disputed domain name for years, which means that the Respondent knew or should have known of its marks.
The Complainant concludes that the Respondent is trying to benefit from the fame of the Complainant’s trademarks and requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions before the due date for Response. On August 25, 2017, the Respondent submitted an email communication to the Center stating the following:
“I did not understand the content of the MAIL/Complaints.
Was not using this mail, so saw the mails today only.
Request you to please advise the way forward.
If required we can remove this DOMAIN.” 6. Discussion and Findings
As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence presented demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of the trademarks PULLMAN, PULLMAN HOTELS and PULLMAN HOTELS AND RESORTS in several jurisdictions. Also, the Complainant owns and operates the domain names and . Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has trademark rights for purposes of the Policy.
The disputed domain name indeed reproduces the Complainant’s trademarks PULLMAN and PULLMAN HOTELS. The addition of the descriptive terms “online” does not avoid confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks.
It is the general view among WIPO UDRP panels that the addition of merely generic, descriptive or geographical words to a trademark in a domain name is normally insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP (for example, Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2001-0110).
The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been proved by the Complainant, i.e., the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not submitted a substantive response to the Complaint.
There is no evidence that the Respondent has any authorization to use the Complainant’s trademarks or to register domain names containing the trademarks PULLMAN and PULLMAN HOTELS.
There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
There is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name or that before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent has made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Based on the evidence in the Complaint, the Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name, which reproduces the Complainant’s trademarks, does not correspond to a bona fide use of domain names under the Policy.
For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The trademarks PULLMAN and PULLMAN HOTELS are registered by the Complainant in several countries, including Australia and India, and have been in use for years.
The disputed domain name totally reproduces the Complainant’s trademarks, adding the descriptive word “online” and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Moreover, this Panel finds that the addition of such term enhances confusion, since the Internet users are likely to believe that the disputed domain name allows the reservation of hotel rooms online.
There is evidence in the Complaint that an email server has been configurated on the disputed domain name with a real risk that the Respondent may be engaged in a phishing scheme, aiming to deceive Internet users to believe they were dealing with the Complainant.
Therefore, this Panel finds that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s marks when it registered the disputed domain name and that the intention of taking undue advantage of the Complainant’s trademarks has been demonstrated.
In any event, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, the non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding.
For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 the Complainant.
Mario Soerensen Garcia
Sole Panelist
Date: September 1, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy