Complainant is Accor of Paris, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
Respondent is dotPH PrivateRegistration / SANGHO HEO of Las Piñas, Philippines. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with DotPH. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 8, 2014. On September 9, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to DotPH a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 10, 2014, DotPH transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on September 19, 2014 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 24, 2014.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .PH Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("phDRP" or the "Policy"), the Rules for .PH Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules (the "Supplemental Rules").
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(1) and 4(1), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 25, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(1), the due date for Response was October 15, 2014. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on October 17, 2014.
The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on October 23, 2014. 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
This factual background is based upon the allegations in the Complaint. Complainant owns and operates several hotels. For more than 45 years, it has provided customers with expertise acquired in this core business.
Accor operates more than 3600 hotels in 92 countries worldwide and over 470,000 rooms, from economy to upscale. The group includes notable hotel chains such as Pullman, Novotel, Mercure and Ibis. Accor'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. Complainant also operates hotels in the Philippines and counts up to 885 employees working in their owned, leased and managed hotels.
Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for ACCOR.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 28, 2014. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant is notably the owner of the following ACCOR and ACCOR HOTELS trademark registrations: International Trademark Registration No. 1128307, dated of February 20, 2012 and covering services in classes 35 and 43 and International Trademark Registration No. 1103847, registered on December 12, 2011 and covering services in classes 35, 39 and 43.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks. Indeed, the disputed domain name reproduces Complainant's trademark in its entirety, which previous UDRP panels have recognized as well-known.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way and has not been authorized by Complainant to use and register its trademarks or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating said mark. Furthermore, Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The registration of several ACCOR trademarks preceded the registration of the disputed domain name by several years. The disputed domain name is so identical to Complainant's well-known trademark ACCOR that Respondent cannot reasonably pretend it was intending to develop a legitimate activity through the disputed domain name.
Additionally, Complainant states that Respondent is engaged in a phishing scheme, a practice intended to defraud consumers into revealing personal and financial information according to emails and data available at Annex 4 to the Complaint. Consequently, Complainant states that the disputed domain name is not used in any type of legitimate business or services but to deceive consumers, who incorrectly understand that they are referred to Complainant's bona fide services.
With respect to bad faith, Complainant states that it is implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name because Complainant is well-known throughout the world, including in the Philippines. Secondly, in many UDRP decisions the panels considered that Complainant's ACCOR trademarks are widely known worldwide. Respondent is engaged in a phishing scheme which aims at stealing financial information such as credit cards from Complainant's clients through the use of an email address associated to the disputed domain name, which redirected towards Complainant's official website.
Finally, Complainant states that passive holding of a domain name can satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, and that in such cases the panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of Respondent's behaviour (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).
Complainant requests as a remedy the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant must assert and prove each of the following:
(i) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name registered by the respondent has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it has rights to word/design trademark registrations for ACCOR and ACCOR HOTELS.
The disputed domain name reproduces the term "Accor" in its entirety, and combines it with the term "hotels". The term "hotels" is generic and devoid of distinctiveness. The extension "ph" refers to the country code Top-Level Domain ("ccTLD") for the Philippines. Far from lessening a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark, the presence of these elements only reinforces the similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark, as they are closely related to the field of business of Complainant, whose services are provided in the Philippines, among other geographic locations.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant has thus satisfied the condition set forth in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way and has not been authorized by Complainant to use and register its trademarks or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating said mark.
Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The registration of several ACCOR trademarks preceded the registration of the disputed domain name by many years.
Moreover, Respondent is not commonly known by the name "Accor", in any way affiliated with Complainant, nor authorized or licensed to use ACCOR trademark, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating said mark.
In addition, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. Respondent did not demonstrate use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Panel finds that Complainant has thus satisfied the condition set forth in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel accepts Complainant's allegations that Respondent certainly knew of Complainant's trademark when it registered the disputed domain name, and that the choice of the term "accor" in combination with the term "hotels" is not a coincidence. The notoriety of the trademark ACCOR has been recognized in several UDRP decisions (Accor v. JE Jeong,WIPO Case No. DCO2010-0040; Accor v. Maixueying Jokemine,WIPO Case No. D2010-2233; Accor S.A. v. ,WIPO Case No. D2007-1257).
The disputed domain name includes Complainant's trademark in its entirety. The association of this term with a generic word referring directly to Complainant's services likewise establishes in this Panel's view that Respondent was aware of Complainant's activities. If Respondent had any doubt about the protection of the term "Accor" in the field of hotel-related services, a simple trademark search would have revealed Complainant's trademark registrations.
No license or authorization of any kind has been given by Complainant to Respondent to use the trademark in the disputed domain name.
In view of the abovementioned circumstances, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The disputed domain name is currently inactive. Nevertheless, this state of inactivity does not mean that the disputed domain name is used in good faith. Previous UDRP panels have already considered that passive holding of a domain name can satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, and that in such cases the panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of respondent's behaviour (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).
The Panel notes Complainant's allegations of Respondent's phishing scheme that aims at stealing financial information from Complainant's clients through the use of an email address associated to the disputed domain name, which redirected to Complainant's official website. Respondent has not denied such allegations. In light of this situation and on the balance of probabilities, it is the Panel's view that the behavior of Respondent evidences use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Therefore, considering the above mentioned circumstances, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and that the Complainant has satisfied the condition set forth in paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(9) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: November 7, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy