The Complainant is Accor of Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Milen Radumilo of Bucharest, Romania. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain name is registered with Namesource LLC; the disputed domain name is registered with eNombre Corporation (collectively the "Registrars"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 16, 2018. On July 16, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On the same day, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification response confirming that the 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 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 24, 2018. In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Rules, the due date for Response was August 13, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on August 14, 2018.
The Center appointed Brigitte Joppich as the sole panelist in this matter on August 29, 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 paragraph 7 of the Rules.
With regard to the disputed domain name , the Complainant filed a complaint on September 7, 2017 against the respondent Perfect Privacy, LLC (WIPO Case No. D2017-1723, which was terminated). When the registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response in such case, registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name were disclosed, differing from the named respondent and contact information in the complaint and revealing Milen Radumilo (the Respondent in the present proceedings) as registrant. Such complaint was then suspended and subsequently terminated. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a multinational hotel group and the owner of the following trademark registrations:
- International trademark ACCOR HOTELS No. 1280325, registered on July 13, 2015, covering services in classes 35, 36, 39, 43;
- French trademark ACCOR HOTELS ARENA No. 4213954 filed on September 30, 2015 and registered on February 5, 2016, covering goods and services in classes 09, 14, 18, 25, 28, 30, 33, 38, 41, 43; and
- European Union trademark ACCOR HOTELS ARENA No. 015131758 filed on February 22, 2016 and registered on December 21, 2017, covering goods and services in classes 9, 14, 18, 25, 28, 30, 33, 38 and 41 (the "ACCOR Marks").
Moreover, the Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations:
- European Union trademark NOVOTEL No. 010429082, filed on November 18, 2011 and registered on April 20, 2012, covering services in class 43;
- International trademark NOVOTEL No. 542032 registered on July 26, 1989, covering services in class 42 (the "NOVOTEL Marks").
Previous UDRP panels have considered the Complainant's trademarks ACCOR HOTELS and NOVOTEL to be well known or famous (Accor v. Adam Smith,WIPO Case No. D2016-0015; Accor v. null,WIPO Case No. D2016-1160; Accor and SoLuxury HMC v. "m on",WIPO Case No. D2012-2262; Accor v. Reap Usd,WIPO Case No. D2016-0177).
The disputed domain name was registered on April 28, 2016 and at the time of the filing of the Complaint redirected towards the official website of the Complainant "".
The disputed domain name was registered on March 15, 2017 and presently resolves towards a parking page displaying sponsored links related to hotel services including accommodations as well as booking services including those offered by the Complainant.
Previously, the disputed domain names both resolved towards parking pages displaying sponsored links to hotel booking services including those of the Complainant and competitors of the Complainant and the disputed domain names were both offered for sale.
The Respondent has been subject to various earlier UDRP disputes where the panel ordered the transfer of the disputed domain names to the complainants (Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Privacy Protection Service, Provided through Communigal Communication Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2018-0552; Skorpio Limited v. Milen RadumiloWIPO Case No. D2018-0368; Immochan v. Milen Radumilo,WIPO Case No. D2017-0113; Carrefour v. Milen Radumilo / United Privacy Corp,WIPO Case No. D2015-1851).
On June 8, 2016, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the privacy shield service, Perfect Privacy, LLC, via registered letter and email on the basis of its trademark rights concerning the disputed domain name , followed by several reminders. The Complainant received a reply via email, on June 13, 2016, from the Respondent informing that it sells domain names for USD 500. The Complainant also sent a cease-and-desist to the privacy shield service, Perfect Privacy, LLC, on May 30, 2017, in relation to the disputed domain name , but the Respondent never replied to it. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
With regard to the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant contends that each of the three conditions is given in the present case.
(i) The Complainant, a French multinational hotel group, is supposed to be the world leader in operating economic and mid-scale hotels, with more than 4,000 hotels and over 600,000 rooms in 100 countries worldwide. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the ACCOR and the NOVOTEL Marks respectively, as the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant's trademark ACCOR HOTELS with a mere addition of the letter "d" in ACCOR and an omission of the letter "s" in HOTELS, associated with the generic term "arena" (while simultaneously imitating the Complainant's trademark ACCOR HOTELS ARENA), and as the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant's trademark NOVOTEL in its entirety with the addition of the geographical term "Brisbane", a city in Australia.
(ii) Allegedly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names as the Respondent has neither been authorized nor licensed by the Complainant, nor did the Respondent demonstrate use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is supposed to be no fair use of the disputed domain names either.
(iii) The Complainant states that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith, listing various reasons for this conclusion, inter alia: when registering the disputed domain names, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's well-known ACCOR and NOVOTEL Marks because of the inclusion of almost the entire trademark in the disputed domain name in each case and of the redirection respectively choice of services offered on the websites at the disputed domain names. Moreover, the Respondent had demonstrated cybersquatting behaviour before, engaged in typosquatting with regard to the disputed domain name , intended to abusively benefit from the Complainant's reputation and offered to sell the disputed domain names. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:
(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ACCOR Marks as it is a typosquatting variation of such marks.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the NOVOTEL Marks, which it contains in their entirety, merely adding a location, the Australian town Brisbane.
The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Even though the Policy requires the complainant to prove that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, it is the consensus view among UDRP panels that a complainant has to make only a prima facie case to fulfill the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. As a result, once a prima facie case is made, the burden of coming forward with evidence of the respondent's rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name will then shift to the respondent.
The Complainant has substantiated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and that the burden of production has been shifted to the Respondent.
The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to come forward with any allegations or evidence demonstrating any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Based on the evidence before the Panel, the Panel cannot find any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent either.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names under paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant and its rights in the ACCOR and NOVOTEL Marks and thus in bad faith as the Respondent used the disputed domain names in connection with a website featuring accommodation services, including the Complainant's respective brands.
The Respondent also used the disputed domain names in bad faith, i.e., in connection with monetized parking pages including links for services competitive with those offered by Complainant, which constitutes bad faith as set forth in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy (see Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. North West Enterprise, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2006-0951). In addition, the Respondent has been subject to various earlier UDRP disputes where the panel ordered the transfer of the disputed domain names to the complainants and therefore also acted in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith and that the Complainant 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 names and be transferred to the Complainant.
Brigitte Joppich
Sole Panelist
Date: September 10, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy