The Complainant is Accor of Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Pierre Masson of Paris, France. 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 July 20, 2018. On July 20, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 20, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its 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 the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 26, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 15, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 16, 2018.
The Center appointed Christophe Caron as the sole panelist in this matter on August 28, 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
The Complainant, Accor, is a French company which is a world leader in the hotel industry.
The Complainant owns several ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS trademarks protected in jurisdictions throughout the world, notably:
- French trademark ACCOR No. 1237864, registered on May 13, 1983, duly renewed, covering goods and services in classes 16, 28, 35, 39, 40, 43, 44 and 45.
- European Union Trade Mark ACCORHOTELS, No. 010248466, registered on March 20, 2012, covering goods and services in classes 35, 39 and 43.
- International trademark ACCOR No. 727696, registered on December 28, 1999, duly renewed, covering goods and services in classes 16, 39 and 42.
In addition, the Complainant operates, among others, domain names reflecting its trademarks in order to promote its services:
- registered on February 23, 1998;
- registered on April 30, 1998.
The disputed domain name was registered on April 16, 2018. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.
A cease and desist letter was sent on April 23, 2018 by the Complainant to the Respondent in order to settle the dispute, but the Respondent did not reply, despite several reminders. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant first argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks in the extent that the disputed domain name reproduces its trademarks ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS in their entirety, which previous panels have considered to be well-known.
Moreover, the Complainant considers that the incorporation of the letters “fr” as a prefix ̶ which refers to the two-letter country code top level domain (ccTLD) abbreviation corresponding to France - does not mitigate any possible confusion.
Furthermore, according to the Complainant, the mere adjunction of a generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) such as “.com” is irrelevant as it is well established that a gTLD is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Complainant considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS, and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) is fulfilled.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is in no way affiliated with the Complainant, nor is the Respondent authorized or licensed to use the ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS trademarks, or to seek registration of any domain names incorporating said marks.
The Complainant adds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known trademarks ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS so that the Respondent cannot reasonably pretend he is intending to develop a legitimate activity through the disputed domain name.
Finally, the Respondent never answered to Complainant’s cease-and desist letter.
For all of the above-cited reasons, the Complainant considers it is undoubtedly established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
- Registration in bad faith
The Complainant states that it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when he registered the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Complainant specifies that the Respondent neither tried to defend his rights nor stated any valid arguments to justify the registration of the disputed domain name.
- Use in bad faith
The Complainant argues that the domain name is currently inactive.
Moreover, the Complainant explains that the Respondent might be engaged in a phishing scheme as email servers have been configured on the disputed domain name. Therefore, the use of an email address with the domain name presents a significant risk where the Respondent could aim at stealing valuable information from the Complainant’s clients. The Complainant states that such use of the disputed domain name demonstrates the Respondent’s intention to abusively benefit from the Complainant’s reputation and particularly from its trademarks ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS to obtain commercial gains from stealing valuable information from customers or employees who are directly related to the Complainant and its business activities.
According to the Complainant, all aforementioned circumstances confirm that the disputed domain name is used in bad faith.
As such, the Complainant considers that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant is the owner of French, European Union and International trademarks ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS.
The trademarks ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS are entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name.
In this Panel’s opinion, the addition of the prefix “fr” in the disputed domain name is not relevant to avoid a finding of confusing similarity.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to registered trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. Thus, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
This Panel is satisfied that the Respondent does not appear to have been commonly known by the disputed domain name, he is not a licensee or an agent of the Complainant, nor is he in any way authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks.
Furthermore, the Respondent cannot claim to have been using the terms “accor” and “accor hotels”, without being aware of the Complainant’s rights.
As there is no apparent use of the disputed domain name, the Respondent cannot be said to be using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Respondent has not come forward to rebut the Complainant’s allegations under this element.
Hence, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is also satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Noting the international reputation of the ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS trademarks, the Respondent could not have ignored them at the time of the registration. The Panel considers that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith.
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name is currently inactive. Passive holding of a domain name can also be an evidence of bad faith use.
Furthermore, email servers have been activated for the disputed domain name and it is hard to imagine in which legitimate way such emails would be used. On the contrary, the Respondent could use any emails address with the “@” suffix for commercial emailing, spamming or phishing purposes.
For all these reasons, it appears to this Panel that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is made out. 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.
Christophe Caron
Sole Panelist
Date: September 6, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy