About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Millennium & Copthorne International Limited (MCIL) v. Haci Simsek, ttg travel

Case No. D2016-0034

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Millennium & Copthorne International Limited (MCIL) of Singapore, represented by Deris Attorneys at Law Partnership, Turkey.

The Respondent is Haci Simsek, ttg travel of Istanbul, Turkey.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <themillenniumsuites.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Domain.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 8, 2016. On January 8, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On January 8, 2016, 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 January 21, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 10, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 15, 2016.

The Center appointed Linda Chang as the sole panelist in this matter on February 22, 2016. 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.

In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 12, the Panel issued a Procedural Order seeking clarification from the Complainant on March 18, 2016. On April 22, 2016, a supplementary statement was received from the Complainant. The Respondent did not submit any comments.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a subsidiary of Millennium & Copthorne Hotels plc and is part of the Millennium and Copthorne Group, a global hospitality management and real estate group that owns and operates hotels in 23 countries.

The Complainant owns trademarks consisting in or comprising the word “Millennium” in numerous jurisdictions in inter alia Class 35 and 43 around the world, registered as early as 2006, including in Turkey where the Respondent is located.

The Domain Name was registered on July 5, 2010 and resolves to a website promoting hotel reservation services provided by The Millennium Suites in Istanbul, Turkey.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends as follows:

(1) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The main element of the Domain Name “millennium” is identical to the Complainant’s MILLENNIUM trademark. The added words such as “the” and “suites” do not have any distinctive character, in particular that the word “suites” has been extensively used in the lodging industry for the meaning of flat or room.

(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant has not licensed or permitted the Respondent to use the MILLENNIUM trademark or to apply for use any domain name incorporating the trademark. The burden of production thus shifts to the Respondent and the Respondent has to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.

(3) The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Domain Name including a well-known MILLENNIUM trademark with a generic word “suites” is an indication of bad faith. The use of the Domain Name by the Respondent for the accommodation services identical to the Complainant’s evidences clear bad faith of the Respondent.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Based on the evidence presented on the record, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has registered trademark rights in the MILLENNIUM and MILLENNIUM SUITES AND APARTMENTS marks.

The Panel views that “.com” is a mere generic top-level domain suffix, and the dominant part of the Domain Name is “the millennium suites”, incorporating the Complainant’s MILLENNIUM trademark in its entirety with two non-distinctive words. The word “the” does not constitute the essential element in comparing the Domain Name with the Complainant’s trademark, while “suites” describes the Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that the inclusion of the generic word “suites” does not avoid the finding of confusing similarity but increases the confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark, since the added word “suites” is descriptive for the Complainant’s hotel business. See ECCO Sko A/S v. Jacklee, WIPO Case No. D2011-0800.

Accordingly, the Panel holds the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has rights in the MILLENNIUM trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant, and has never been authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark, or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark.

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, and the burden of production shifts to the Respondent. See Carlsberg A/S v. Personal / decohouse, decohouse, WIPO Case No. D2011-0972.

The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the contentions of the Complainant and prove its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Based on the current evidence, the Panel finds no indications that the Respondent may have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (see also Millennium & Copthorne Hotels PLC, Millennium & Copthorne International Limited (MCIL) v. Sanjay Makkar and Millennium Hotel, WIPO Case D2015-0210).

For all of the above reasons, the Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant has a number of MILLENNIUM trademarks in Turkey where the Respondent resides, with the first mark applied as early as in 1996. The Complainant has also produced sufficient evidence to prove that it has been trading under its trademark MILLENNIUM worldwide and developed goodwill in its MILLENNIUM mark in the hotel business.

Given the reputation of the MILLENNIUM trademark in the hotel business, the Panel agrees the Respondent should have known of the Complainant’s trademark and services at the time of registering the Domain Name. The Panel holds that the Respondent’s awareness of the MILLENNIUM mark at the time of registration suggests opportunistic bad faith registration. See Deutsche Bank AG v. Diego-Arturo Bruckner, WIPO Case No. D2000-0277.

The Respondent is using the Domain Name to divert Internet users to a website promoting hotel reservation services for The Millennium Suites. The Panel finds that bad faith is established by the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to attract Internet users to a for-profit online hotel reservation site. By incorporating the MILLENNIUM trademark in the Domain Name, the Respondent is intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website, and that the Internet users are likely to be confused into thinking that the Domain Name has a connection with the Complainant, which is contrary to the fact.

Moreover, the Respondent has chosen not to respond to the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant, the Complaint, and the supplementary statement from the Complainant. The Panel views that the Respondent’s failure to respond and defend itself is indicative of bad faith. See The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, WIPO Case No. D2009-0610, “The failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complaint further supports an inference of bad faith (Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. (This Domain is For Sale) Joshuathan Investments, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2002-0787)”.

In light of the above facts and reasons, the Panel therefore determines that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

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 Domain Name, <themillenniumsuites.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Linda Chang
Sole Panelist
Date: May 6, 2016

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/