The Complainant is Booking.com B.V., Netherlands, represented internally.
The Respondents are Laurent Dubois, France, Anne Dubois, France, Billy Milley, Poland.
2. The Domain Names and RegistrarsThe disputed domain name
The disputed domain name
The disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 24, 2021. On December 27, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On December 28, 2021 and December 29, 2021, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondents and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication in English and French to the parties on February 3, 2022 regarding the language of the proceeding, as the Complaint has been submitted in English and the language of the registration agreement for one of the disputed domain names is French. The Complainant submitted a request for English to be the language of the proceeding on February 7, 2022. The Respondents did not comment on the language of the proceeding. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 7, 2022.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 10, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 2, 2022. On February 13, 2022, one of the Respondents sent an informal email communication in French to the Center regarding the disputed domain name
The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on March 11, 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.
The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondents regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties.
Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a formal response from the Respondents.
4. Factual BackgroundThe Complainant is Booking.com B.V., a Dutch company operating in the field of reserving accommodation online and owning several trademark registrations for BOOKING.COM, among which:
- European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 008955353 for BOOKING.COM, registered on October 5, 2011;
- International Trademark Registration No. 1104711 for BOOKING.COM, registered on December 15, 2011.
The Complainant operates on the Internet at the main website “www.booking.com”.
The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above.
According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name
The Complainant states that the disputed domain names
Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names since they are not commonly known by the disputed domain names and they are not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names: the disputed domain names are used to send phishing emails to Complainant’s partners with the goal to getting their financial details and to solicit payment of fraudulent invoices.
The Complainant submits that the Respondents have registered the disputed domain names in bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark BOOKING.COM is well known in the field of reserving accommodation online. Therefore, the Respondents targeted the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain names and the Complainant contends that the impersonation of the Complainant by the Respondents, aimed to obtain personal identification of Complainant’s partners and solicit from them the payment of fraudulent invoices, qualifies as bad faith registration and use.
B. RespondentThe Respondents have made no formal reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn (see, e.g., Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0441; Microsoft Corporation v. Freak Films Oy,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0109; SSL International Plc v. Mark Freeman,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1080; Altavista Company v. Grandtotal Finances Limited et. al.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0848; Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Nord Europe v. Marketing Total S.A.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0288).
In this case, the Respondent owning the disputed domain name
“On m’a pirater mon compte” (that in English could be translated as: “My account has been pirated”, although in French “pirated” should be “piraté”, as “pirater” means “to pirate”).
6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Consolidation of Multiple RespondentsThe Complainant has requested consolidation of multiple respondents and stated that all the disputed domain names belong to the same person or organization, using the same fraud/phishing scheme. No objection to this request was made by the Respondents.
Pursuant to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2, “[w]here a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario”. The Panel may consider a range of factors to determine whether consolidation is appropriate, such as examining relevant registrant contact information, and any naming patterns in the disputed domain names, or other evidence of respondent affiliation that indicate common control of the disputed domain names.
The Panel notes that all the disputed domain names follow the same naming pattern, are used for a very similar if not identical phishing scheme, and two of them, namely
According to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel decides that the language of the proceeding will be English. The language of the Registration Agreement of the disputed domain names
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:
(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark BOOKING.COM both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain names
Regarding the addition of the terms “accounting”, “support” and “extranets”, the Panel notes that it is now well established that the addition of descriptive terms or letters to a domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark (see, e.g., Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Jonathan Valicenti,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0037; Red Bull GmbH v. Chai Larbthanasub,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0709; America Online, Inc. v. Dolphin@Heart,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0713). The addition of the terms “accounting”, “support” and “extranets” does not therefore prevent the disputed domain names from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Respondents have failed to file a formal response in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5.
The Complainant in its Complaint, and as set out above, has established a prima facie case that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. It asserts that the Respondents, who are not currently associated with the Complainant in any way, are not commonly known by the disputed domain names and are not using the disputed domain names for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but instead the disputed domain names have been used for phishing activities.
According to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13:
“2.13.1 Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent […].”
The prima facie case presented by the Complainant is enough to shift the burden of production to the Respondents to demonstrate that they have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. However, the Respondents have not presented any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests they may have in the disputed domain names, and the Panel is unable to establish any such rights or legitimate interests on the basis of the evidence in front of it.
Moreover, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain names carries a risk of implied affiliation as they effectively impersonate or suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant (see WIPO Overview 3.0., section 2.5.1).
Based on the facts of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithParagraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that “[…] for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that [the Respondent has] registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) that [the Respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the Respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) that [the Respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) that by using the domain name, [the Respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the Respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the Respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the Respondent’s] website or location”.
Regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain names, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark BOOKING.COM in the field of reserving accommodation online is clearly established and the Panel finds that the Respondents likely knew of the Complainant and deliberately registered the disputed domain names because they are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel further notes that the disputed domain names are also used in bad faith since it consists of a scheme aimed to phishing activity, as evidenced by the Complainant by producing email communications sent by the Respondents, pretending to be the Complainant, to Complainant’s partners, in which the Respondents were trying to get their financial details and to solicit payment of fraudulent invoices. The fact that the disputed domain names are currently inactive does not prevent a finding of bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented evidence to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the issue of whether the Respondents have registered and are using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied.
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
Edoardo Fano
Sole Panelist
Date: March 23, 2022