Complainants are ACCOR and SOLUXURY HMC, France (collectively “Complainant”), represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
Respondent is 郭靖兰 (Guo Jinglan), China.
2. The Domain Names and RegistrarThe Disputed Domain Names
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 7, 2021. On July 7, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On July 7, 2021, 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 July 27, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 16, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 17, 2021.
The Center appointed Richard W. Page as the sole panelist in this matter on September 1, 2021. 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 BackgroundComplainant is a leading global hotel operator that owns, manages and franchises hotels, resorts and vacation properties. It is one of the largest hospitality companies in Europe and the sixth largest worldwide. Complainant is a world leader in economic and mid-scale hotels and a major player in upscale and luxury hospitality services. Complainant has provided customers with expertise acquired in this core business for more than 45 years. Its main website is available at “www.group.accor.com” and its booking platform at “www.all.accor.com”.
Complainant operates more than 5,100 hotels in 110 countries worldwide with more than 753,000 rooms, from economy to upscale. The group includes notable hotel chains such as Fairmont, Raffles, Swissôtel, Sofitel, Pullman, Novotel, Grand Mercure, and Ibis. Complainant’s brands offer hotel stays tailored to the specific needs of each business and leisure customer and are recognized and appreciated around the world for their service quality.
Pullman is the high-end international brand of Complainant, mainly targeted at cosmopolitan travelers who have wide connections and enjoy combining work and pleasure. Located in the world’s most vibrant global cities and most sought-after tourist destinations, Pullman 4-star and 5-star hotels and resorts welcome modern-day adventurers, nomads and explorers, traveling on their own or with like-minded companions and associates, for business or pleasure.
Pullman hotels are where the new nomads find inspiration and make connections. Premium technology and services break down the boundaries between work and leisure and provide high-intensity experiences. Central locations in the major cities of the world, the best professional and sports amenities, timeless and functional design, as well as balanced culinary concepts are some of the features to be found in Pullman hotels.
Pullman hotels have central locations in the major cities of the world. Pullman hotels count more than 20,000 employees and 143 hotels in the world. They organize more than 30,000 events each year. Complainant is also present in China and counts up to 202 hotels and 49,981 rooms among which there are 37 Pullman hotels. There are many Pullman hotels in Shanghai, China: Pullman Shanghai South Hotel, Pullman Shanghai Jin’an Hotel, and Pullman Shanghai Skywalk Hotel.
Sofitel is a French international hospitality brand and one of the luxury hotel chain brands owned by Complainant. All Sofitel hotels have an authentic passion for the new French art de vivre and luxurious French hospitality, embracing and honoring local culture, showcasing the finest in gastronomy complemented by classic French techniques, a dedication to the art of wellness, and a never-ending appreciation for modern and contemporary design.
Currently, there are 120 Sofitel hotels worldwide, in more than 49 countries around the world, including China.
Complainants ACCOR and SOLUXURY HMC are the owners of several trademark registrations for PULLMAN and SOFITEL.
The Disputed Domain Names were registered on February 18, 2021. The Disputed Domain Names resolve to websites reproducing Complainants’ visuals, logos and offering information as well as booking services for Pullman and Sofitel hotels in Shanghai.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantComplainant contends that since it was founded in 1967, it has acquired considerable reputation and goodwill worldwide. Complainant further contends that it owns and operates several hotels under the PULLMAN and SOFITEL Marks, which are well-known trademarks, protected worldwide and related to hospitality and restaurant services.
Complainant further contends that it is the owner, without limitation, of the following trademark registrations: International Trademark SOFITEL, Registration No. 939096, registered on August 30, 2007, designating inter alia, Australia, China, Japan, the European Union, Russian Federation and the United States of America, covering services in classes 35, 36, 43 and 44 and duly renewed since then; and International Trademark PULLMAN, Registration No. 1188855, registered on October 10, 2013, designating, inter alia, Australia, China, Japan, the European Union, Turkey, Viet Nam and the United States of America, covering services in Class 43.
Complainant further contends that it operates, among others, domain names reflecting its trademarks in order to promote its services: for example,
Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Names reproduce entirely Complainant’s PULLMAN and SOFITEL Marks associated with terms “zhongxing” and “sheshan” and with the letters “sh” referring to “sheshan” which only enhances the likelihood of confusion.
Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Names resolve to websites reproducing Complainant’s visuals, logos and offering information as well as booking services for the Pullman and Sofitel hotels in Shanghai, China. These websites use Complainant’s renown and create the false impression that they are endorsed by or related to Complainant.
Before starting the present proceeding, Complainant made efforts to resolve this matter amicably. Upon detection of the registration of the Disputed Domain Names, and in order to secure the situation, Complainant sent a notification to the Registrar in order to block these Disputed Domain Names. However, the Registrar replied that they are unable to do so.
On April 7, 2021, Complainant sent another notification to the hosting company via email on the basis of its trademark rights. Complainant requested the deactivation of the fraudulent websites. Despite several reminders, Complainant has not received any response to its requests.
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the PULLMAN and SOFITEL Marks, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Names contain the entirety of the PULLMAN and SOFITEL Marks. The only additional terms in the Disputed Domain Names are “zhongxin” and “sheshan”, and the letters “sh” referring to sheshan. These terms correspond to locations of Complainant’s hotels in China.
Complainant further contends that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is not to be considered as distinguishing the Disputed Domain Names from the PULLMAN and SOFITEL Marks.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
Complainant further asserts that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way, nor has he been authorized by Complainant to use and register the PULLMAN or SOFITEL Marks, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating these trademarks.
Moreover, Respondent is neither known by the brand “Pullman” or “Sofitel”, nor in any way affiliated with Complainant, nor authorized or licensed to use the PULLMAN and SOFITEL Marks or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating these Marks. Complainant further asserts that in the absence of any license or permission from Complainant to use such widely-known trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate interests of the Disputed Domain Names could reasonably be claimed.
Complainant further asserts that the registration of the PULLMAN and SOFITEL Marks preceded the registration of the Disputed Domain Names by years.
Complainant further asserts that Respondent is making a non-legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Names, with intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert Internet users from Complainant’s official websites. Such behavior cannot be regarded as legitimate or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names.
Complainant further asserts that it is not possible to conceive of a plausible circumstance in which Respondent could legitimately use the Disputed Domain Names, as it would invariably result in misleading diversion and taking unfair advantage of Complainant’s rights.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
Complainant further alleges that Respondent knew or should have known about the trademark rights of Complainant when registered the Disputed Domain Names. Complainant is well-known throughout the world, including China, where Complainant is operating its business. The composition of the Disputed Domain Names is confusingly similar to the PULLMAN and SOFITEL Marks, which clearly demonstrates that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names based on the attractiveness of Complainant’s trademarks and in order to divert Internet users to its illegitimate websites.
B. RespondentRespondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsParagraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.
Even though Respondent has failed to file a Response or to contest Complainant’s assertions, the Panel will review the evidence proffered by Complainant to verify that the essential elements of the claims are met. See section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following:
i) that the Disputed Domain Names registered by Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to the PULLMAN and SOFITEL Marks in which Complainant has rights; and
ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Doman Names; and
iii) that the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarSection 1.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that registration of a trademark is prima facie evidence of Complainant having enforceable rights in the PULLMAN and SOFITEL Marks.
Complainant alleges that it has numerous registrations for the PULLMAN and SOFITEL Marks. Respondent has not contested these allegations.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has enforceable trademark rights in the PULLMAN and SOFITEL Marks.
Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the PULLMAN and SOFITEL Marks, pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 says that inclusion of the entire trademark in a domain name will be considered confusingly similar. Also, section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 instructs that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Also see Section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 instructs that gTLDs such as “.com” may be disregarded for purposes of assessing confusing similarity.
The Panel finds that the entirety of the PULLMAN and SOFITEL Marks are contained in the Disputed Domain Names with the addition of merely geographic terms.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsComplainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Names pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
Section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that once Complainant makes a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of Respondent, Respondent carries the burden of production of demonstrating it has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. Where Respondent fails to do so, Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy allows three non-exclusive methods for the Panel to conclude that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names:
(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Names or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the PULLMAN or SOFITEL Mark.
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way, nor has he been authorized by Complainant to use and register the PULLMAN or SOFITEL Marks, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating its trademarks.
Complainant further asserts that Respondent is neither known by the name “Pullman” or “Sofitel”. Complainant further asserts that in the absence of any license or permission from Complainant to use such widely-known trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate interests of the Disputed Domain Names could reasonably be claimed.
Complainant further asserts that the registration of the PULLMAN and SOFITEL Marks preceded the registration of the Disputed Domain Names by years.
Complainant further asserts that Respondent is making a non-legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Names, with intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert Internet users from Complainant’s official websites. Such behavior cannot be regarded as legitimate or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names.
Complainant further asserts that it is not possible to conceive of a plausible circumstance in which Respondent could legitimately use the Disputed Domain Names, as it would invariably result in misleading diversion and taking unfair advantage of Complainant’s rights.
The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names, which did not be refuted by Respondent.
Therefore, Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithComplainant alleges that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith in violation of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth four non-exclusive criteria for Complainant to show bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names:
(i) circumstances indicating that you [Respondent] have registered or you have acquired the Disputed Domain Names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Names registrations to Complainant who is the owner of the PULLMAN and SOFITAL Marks or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain Names; or
(ii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Names in order to prevent the owner of the PULLMAN and SOFITEL Marks from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the Disputed Domain Names, you [Respondent] have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the PULLMAN and SOFITEL Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product.
Complainant further alleges that Respondent is making a bad faith use of the Disputed Domain Names, with intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert Internet users from Complainant’s official websites. Such behavior cannot be regarded as legitimate or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names.
Complainant further alleges that it is not possible to conceive of a plausible circumstance in which Respondent could legitimately use the Disputed Domain Names, as it would invariably result in misleading diversion and taking unfair advantage of Complainant’s rights.
Complainant further alleges that Respondent knew or should have known about the trademark rights of Complainant when registered the Disputed Domain Names. Complainant is well-known throughout the world, including China, where Complainant is operating its business. The composition of the Disputed Domain Names is confusingly similar to the PULLMAN and SOFITEL Marks, which clearly demonstrates that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names based on the attractiveness of Complainant’s trademarks and in order to divert Internet traffic to its illegitimate websites.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. DecisionFor 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,
Richard W. Page
Sole Panelist
Date: September 15, 2021