Complainant is Accor, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
Respondent is Domain Admin, Domain Service, Inc, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 26, 2021. On October 26, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 27, 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 November 16, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 6, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 10, 2022.
The Center appointed José M. Checa as the sole panelist in this matter on January 18, 2022. 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 global hotel operator of economic, mid-scale, upscale and luxury hospitality services.
Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks registrations: International Trademark ACCOR No. 1471895, registered on December 24, 2018, designating, among others, the United States and covering services in classes 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, and 44; and European Union Trademark ACCORHOTELS No. 010248466, filed on September 8, 2011, registered on March 20, 2012 and covering services in classes 35, 39, and 43;
Complainant also owns the domain names
The disputed domain name was registered on March 15, 2021 and at the time of drafting this Decision, it redirects to Complainant’s website.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantComplainant has provided evidence of trademark registrations for the ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS mark in numerous countries.
According to the Complaint, Complainant is a leading global hotel operator. A world leader in economic and mid-scale hotels, and a major player in upscale and luxury hospitality services, it has been providing customers with expertise acquired in this core business for more than 45 years. Its main website is available at “www.accorhotels.com”, which redirects to “www.all.accor.com”. Complainant has business activities in 110 countries and owns other hotel brands such as Fairmont, Raffles, Swissôtel, Sofitel, Pullman, Novotel, Grand Mercure and Ibis.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS since it reproduces the ACCOR mark completely, while removing the letter “o” of the descriptive word “hotels”, which results in a situation of typosquatting. The addition of the generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the disputed domain name is irrelevant to the confusing similarity analysis.
Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor has it been licensed or permitted to use Complainant’s ACCOR or ACCORHOTELS marks. Complainant confirms that it has no legal relationship with Respondent and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant argues that Respondent is neither using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant further claims that an email server has been configured on the disputed domain name and thus, there might be a risk that Respondent is engaged in a phishing scheme.
Complainant further contends that, given the fame of its ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS marks, Respondent was or should have been aware of those trademarks prior to registering the disputed domain name and also, that there are no circumstances under which Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name could plausibly be in good faith under the Policy. In addition, the registration of a confusingly similar domain name that is so obviously connected with a particular trademark owner by someone with no connection with the trademark owner suggests bad faith. As mentioned above, Complainant further argues that Respondent might be involved in phishing activities. Complainant has submitted evidence that the disputed domain name is being used to direct Internet users to a webpage displaying pay-per-clicks links which are likely to generate revenues, which is evidence of bad faith (as mentioned under Section 5 above, at the time of drafting this Decision, the disputed domain name redirects to Complainant’s website).
B. RespondentRespondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarComplainant has provided evidence of its trademark registrations for ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS establishing clear trademark rights in the mark.
The Panel finds that for the purpose of considering whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, the gTLD “.com” should be disregarded (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview of 3.0”), section 1.11.1). Thus, on a side-by-side comparison, Complainant’s entire ACCOR mark is included at the beginning of the disputed domain name and it is fully recognizable. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ACCOR trademark as required by paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s ACCORHOTELS trademark, since the only difference is the omission of the letter “o” in the disputed domain name, the rest being identical (WIPO Overview of 3.0, section 1.19).
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsComplainant has put forward unrebutted assertions that it has never licensed or in any way authorized Respondent to register or use the ACCOR or the ACCORHOTELS trademarks in any manner, to register the disputed domain name, or otherwise make use of its trademarks, and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant also asserts that Respondent has never used, or made preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name either. Complainant has submitted evidence that, before filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name was being used to direct Internet users to a webpage displaying pay-per-clicks links which are likely to generate revenues. However, at the time of drafting this Decision, the disputed domain name redirects to Complainant’s website. Either way, the Panel finds that Respondent cannot be considered to have made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor that it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish Complainant’s trademark (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.9 “[P]anels have found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising [pay-per-click] links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users”).
The Panel further notes that Complainant’s trademark is the distinctive and prominent element of the disputed domain name, with a misspelling of the term “hotels” i.e. “htels” added to it, which is intimately connected to Complainant’s activities. Typosquatting is already a strong indication that use of the disputed domain name cannot be “fair” in the sense of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy [See also, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9 “panels will normally find that employing a misspelling in this way signals an intention on the part of the respondent (typically corroborated by infringing website content) to confuse users seeking or expecting the complainant”].
The Panel considers that Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1). Respondent is in default and thus, it has not put forward any circumstance that would indicate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithBased on Complainant’s extensive use of its ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS trademarks prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, and the typo in the word “hotel” (which appears to be deliberate), it is very unlikely that Respondent was not aware of Complainant’s brand. Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4).
Regarding the use of the disputed domain name, Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain name was being used to direct Internet users to a webpage displaying pay-per-click links which are likely to generate revenues, which would already support a finding of bad faith (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.5,“Particularly with respect to “automatically” generated pay-per-click links, panels have held that a respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for content appearing on the website associated with its domain name”). Respondent has not challenged the evidence submitted by Complainant. The Panel notes however that, at the time of drafting this Decision, the disputed domain name redirects to Complainant’s website. Under the circumstances, such redirection also supports a finding that Respondent has registered a domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4).
In addition, other circumstances present in this case such as (i) the nature of the disputed domain name (a widely used trademark followed by the misspelling of a descriptive term closely linked to Complainant’s activities); (ii) a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no explanation for Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name; (iii) the failure of Respondent to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use; and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put (in addition to its current use) further support a finding that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name was in bad faith (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith in accordance with 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 name
José M. Checa
Sole Panelist
Date: February 1, 2022