Complainant is Accor d'Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
Respondent is Sascha Winter of Dubai, United Arab Emirates. 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 November 29, 2017. On November 29, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 30, 2017, 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 December 21, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 10, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on January 15, 2018.
The Center appointed Dilek Ustun Ekdial as the sole panelist in this matter on February 5, 2018. 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
Complainant owns and operates a number of hotels under the trademarks ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS, protected worldwide in particular in relation to hotel and restaurant services as well as travel, dining and lifestyle programs.
Complainant is notably the owner of the following trademark registrations:
- International trademark ACCOR No. 727696, registered on December 28, 1999 covering goods and services in classes 16, 39, 42;
- International trademark ACCOR No. 742032, registered on August 25, 2000, covering services in class 38;
- International trademark ACCOR HOTELS No. 1280325, registered on July 13, 2015, covering services in classes 35, 36, 39, 43;
Complainant also operates, among others, domain names reflecting its trademarks in order to promote its services:
-The domain name registered on February 23, 1998;
- The domain name registered on April 30, 1998.
The disputed domain name was registered on April 5, 2017, and resolves to a parking page displaying sponsored links. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks ACCOR and ACCOR HOTELS.
The disputed domain name reproduces Complainant's trademarks ACCOR and ACCOR HOTELS in their entirety, which previous UDRP panels have considered as well known (Accor and SoLuxury HMC v. "m on",WIPO Case No. D2012-2262; Accor and SoLuxury HMC v. Fundacion Private Whois,WIPO Case No. D2012-1654; Accor v. Mao Jian Ting,WIPO Case No. D2012-0189; Accor v. Domainjet, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2012-0038; Accor v. Huajicani Hujiancai,WIPO Case No. D2014-0189; Accor v. DreamHost, Long Giang,WIPO Case No. D2014-0196; Accor v. Reap Usd,WIPO Case No. D2016-0177).
In many UDRP decisions, panels have considered that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant's registered mark (ACCOR v. Lee Dong Youn,WIPO Case No. D2008-0705; The Coca Cola company v. PrivacyP / Acosta Jose Julian,WIPO Case No. 2010-0335; and RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. InvisibleR, Domain Admin,WIPO Case No. D2010-1059).
The disputed domain name incorporates the trademarks ACCOR and ACCOR HOTELS in their entirety with the adjunction of the geographical term "Middle East". The addition of this geographical term does not reduce the risk of similarity. Also Complainant adds that the extension ".com" is not to be taken into consideration when examining the identity or similarity between Complainant's trademarks and the disputed domain name.
Complainant also alleges that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way and has not been authorized by Complainant to use and register its trademarks or to seek registration of any domain names incorporating said marks. Furthermore, Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Complainant adds that Respondent did not demonstrate use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page displaying sponsored links which relates to Complainant's field of activity and according to Complainant; the domain name in dispute resolves to a webpage with sponsored (pay-per-click) links which are likely to generate revenue, it cannot be inferred that Respondent is making a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
Complainant alleges that Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since it is implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant's ACCOR trademark as Complainant's trademarks are well known worldwide. Also, a quick trademark search on the terms "accor" and "accor hotels" would have revealed to Respondent the existence of Complainant and its trademarks.
Complainant states that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a parking page displaying sponsored links which relate to Complainant's field of activity. Numerous UDRP panels have previously considered that this behavior was an additional proof of bad faith. Complainant also contends that Respondent might be engaged in a phishing scheme as email servers have been configured on the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires the Panel to decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the complainant bears the burden of showing:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the 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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant owns trademark rights throughout the world for the ACCOR and ACCOR HOTELS marks.
The disputed domain name contains Complainant's trademarks ACCOR and ACCOR HOTELS with the adjunction of the geographical term "Middle East". The addition of this geographical term does not avoid confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's marks.
The extension ".com" may be disregarded when examining the identity or confusing similarity between Complainant's trademarks and the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks ACCOR and ACCOR HOTELS in which Complainant has rights, satisfying the condition of the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has not provided any evidence of the conditions specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or any other circumstances giving rise to a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. It is clear that Respondent has not demonstrated any bona fide offering of goods and services by its using the disputed domain name. Nor has Respondent shown that it has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Rather, the evidence of Complainant suggests that Respondent has used the disputed domain name in an attempt to trade off the goodwill associated with Complainant's trademark.
Complainant also showed, inter alia, that Respondent has neither a license nor any other permission to use Complainant's trademark in the disputed domain name or otherwise.
The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, and Respondent has failed to demonstrate such rights or legitimate interests or otherwise rebut Complainant's arguments.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is of the opinion that when Respondent registered the disputed domain name it knew that ACCOR and ACCOR HOTELS were the trademarks of Complainant, and that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a parking page displaying sponsored links which relate to Complainant's field of activity from which it may be inferred that Respondent derives revenue. Numerous UDRP panels have previously considered that this behavior was an additional proof of bad faith (Hardee's Food Systems, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / ICS Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2012-1696; DaimlerChrysler Corporation and DaimlerChrysler Services North America LLC v. LaPorte Holdings, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2005-0070; and Royal Bank of Canada v. Henry Chan,WIPO Case No. D2003-0031).
There is no suggestion that Respondent had any intention of legitimate use, that it enjoys a legitimate connection to the disputed domain name or that there is conceivable good faith use for the disputed domain name. After examining all circumstances surrounding the registration and use of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
There being no convincing evidence regarding the use of the disputed domain name in connection with a possible fraudulent email scheme, the Panel declines to make any finding in this regard.
Accordingly the Panel finds in favor of Complainant on the third element 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 Complainant.
Dilek Ustun Ekdial
Sole Panelist
Date: February 16, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy