The Complainant is Accor of Paris, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Nguyen Trong Khoa of Ho-Chi-Minh, Viet Nam.
The following disputed domain names are registered with eNom:
<mercuresamson.com>
<mercuresontra.com>
<mercuresontraresort.com>
<novotelciputrahanoi.com>
<novoteldanang.com>
<novoteldanangpremier.com>
<novotelnhatrang.com>
<novotelphuquoc.com>
<novotelphuquocresort.com>
The following disputed domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC:
<mercure-sontra.com>
<pullmansaigoncentre.com>
<pullmansaigon.com>
The disputed domain name <pullmanhanoi.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 23, 2014. The Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. Above registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 5, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 25, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 27, 2014.
The Center appointed Benoit Van Asbroeck as the sole panelist in this matter on April 9, 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 paragraph 7 of the Rules.
A late Response was sent by email to the Center and to the Complainant’s representatives on April 10, 2014.
The Complainant is, since more than 45 years, a world leader in economic and mid-scale hotels, and a major player in upscale and luxury hospitality services. The group includes notable hotel chains such as PULLMAN, NOVOTEL, MERCURE and IBIS.
The Complainant operates in 92 countries worldwide, including Viet Nam where it owns 2 Mercure hotels, 4 Novotel hotels, and 2 Pullman hotels. These hotels are located in several regions of Viet Nam namely Phu Quoc Island, Hanoi, Danang, Nha Trang, Saigon and Sontra.
The Complainant owns numerous well-known trademarks, namely NOVOTEL, MERCURE, and PULLMAN (the “Trademarks”), which are protected worldwide.
The Complainant is also the owner of the following domain names, all intended to reflect the Complainant’s trademarks in order to promote its services: <accorhotels.com>, <novotel.com>, <mercure.com> and <pullmanhotel.com>. The websites linked to these domain names are the Complainant’s main channels to communicate with its customers.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain names between 2011 and 2012.
On June 6, 2012, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent. The Respondent replied asserting its alleged rights to the domain names and refusing to recognize it was committing any infringement.
On October 9, 2012, the Complainant sent another cease and desist letter. This time, the Respondent alleged to be involved with a famous commercial activity in the field of pastries and again asserted its rights in the domain names and that it was not infringing any of the Complainant's trademarks
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case.
(a) The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant is, and has been for many years, the right holder of the well-known trademarks NOVOTEL, MERCURE, and PULLMAN, protected worldwide, including Viet Nam. The Trademarks are particularly used in relation to hotels and restaurants services. Said Trademarks predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names.
Each of the disputed domain names incorporates the Complainant’s Trademarks NOVOTEL, MERCURE, and PULLMAN in their entirety. Hence, the incorporation of the Trademarks wholly in the disputed domain names renders the latter confusingly similar to those Trademarks.
Besides, the Complainant further contends that the addition of geographical terms, which all correspond to the regional location of its hotels in Viet Nam (except for the location “Samson” which corresponds to the location of a MERCURE hotel on the Mount Samson in Australia), reinforces the likelihood of confusion.
In this respect, the Complainant also points out that the addition of a geographical term is insufficient to give any distinctiveness to the disputed domain names.
Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the use of generic terms, such as “resort” in the present case, does not have to be regarded when assessing the similarity between the Trademarks and the disputed domain names.
Finally, the Complainant further contends, in light of numerous UDRP decision, that the addition of hyphenation or of the top-level suffix “.com” does not contribute to the distinctiveness of a domain name and thus may not necessarily be considered when examining the risk of confusion.
Consequently, for all of the above mentioned reasons, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain names could mislead Internet users and are identical or confusingly similar with the Trademarks.
(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain names long after the Complainant established its rights in and to the Trademarks, registered in many countries around the world.
No license or authorization was granted to the Respondent to use the Trademarks or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the Trademarks.
Besides, given the well-known character of the Trademarks and given that the disputed domain names are identical to the Trademarks, the Complainant contends that the Respondent cannot reasonably argue that he was trying to develop a legitimate activity through the disputed domain names.
Furthermore, the Complainant contends that no evidence exists to suggest that the Respondent (i) has ever used, or demonstrated preparation to use, the disputed domain names, or a name corresponding to the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services; (ii) as an individual, business, or other organization, has been commonly known by the disputed domain names; or, (iii) is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
In support of this contention, the Complainant submits that the Respondent abusively benefits from the Complainant’s reputation by falsely suggesting it is the Trademarks owner and misleadingly diverting Internet users from Complainant’s official websites to its website “www.paradisedomain.com”. The Complainant also asserts that, in the past, the disputed domain names have directed Internet users to (i) inactive pages; (ii) the website “www.vietnamdomainexchange.com”; (iii) parking pages displaying commercial links related to hotels of the Complainant and its competitors; and, (iv) disguised parking pages containing pay-per-click links, which are likely to generate revenues.
Moreover, the Complainant adds that the terms “novotel” and “mercure” have no meaning in English.
Consequently, for all of the above mentioned reasons, the Complainant considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain names.
(c) The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith
The Complainant evidences that the disputed domain names were registered while the Respondent was well aware of the existence of the Trademarks. First, the Complainant is well known throughout the world and several UDRP decisions recognize that fact. Second, the addition of geographical terms permits the Respondent to directly refer to the Complainant’s hotels in those regions.
The Complainant relies on previous UDRP decisions to assert that where a domain name is obviously connected with a well-known trademark, like in the present case, its use by someone with no connection to that trademark suggest opportunistic bad faith.
Moreover, the Complainant suggests that a quick trademark search or Internet search would have revealed to the Respondent the existence of the Trademarks. In addition, the Complainant argues that even if the Respondent was unaware of these search possibilities, the current advancement in information technology permits trademarks to acquire a reputation beyond national borders.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Complainant considers that the registration by the Respondent has been conducted in bad faith.
The Complainant puts forward several elements showing use in bad faith of the disputed domain names by the Respondent.
First, the Respondent uses the disputed domain names to direct Internet users to his website at “www.paradisedomain.com” where he pretends to be a consultant in the field of domain names. The Complainant consequently concludes that the Respondent’s main aim is to occupy the disputed domain names.
Second, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is playing with the Trademarks’ notoriety and reputation in order to derive profits and to obtain commercial gain in relation with his personal activities. The Complainant notes that the use of domain names to divert Internet users and to direct them to a webpage providing click through revenues to the Respondent evidences bad faith.
Third, the Complainant contends that the Respondent provides in the web pages at the disputed domain names, without the Complainant’s authorization, commercial links related to hotels and services including those of the Complainant and its competitors. The Complainant relies on previous UDRP decisions to consider this constitutes bad faith use of the disputed domain names.
Consequently, the Complainant considers that the primary purpose of the Respondent’s activities is to capitalize on the reputation of the Complainant’s Trademarks.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions within the Response due date.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to “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”.
Notwithstanding a respondent’s formal default, the complainant must nevertheless still establish each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (the “WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 2.1 and paragraph 4.6, and the relevant decisions cited therein. Nonetheless, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant’s undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, draw such inferences as it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
This Panel shall further decide whether it should take the Respondent’s tardy submission of April 10, 2014, into consideration, even though it was sent after the deadline for filing the Response.
Paragraph 5 (d) of the Rules provides that “at the request of the Respondent, the Provider may, in exceptional cases, extend the period of time for the filing of the response. The period may also be extended by written stipulation between the Parties, provided the stipulation is approved by the Provider”. Paragraph 5 (e) of the Rules provides on its part that “if a Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the complaint”.
This Panel finds that the Respondent has not requested a time extension to file a response within the meaning of paragraph 5(b) of the Rules.
This Panel further considers that this is not an exceptional case. In particular, there is no reason to believe that the Respondent did not have a fair opportunity to file its response within the time limit. Besides, no valid reasons for exceptionality are given by the Respondent (see in the same way Deutsche Telekom AG v. Luis Javier Collazos,WIPO Case No. D2003-0371; Young Genius Software AB v. MWD, James Vargas,WIPO Case No. D2000-0591; Lammot Copeland, Jr. v. Computer Product Introductions,WIPO Case No. D2003‑0823).
Consequently, this Panel decides that it shall not take into account the Respondent’s tardy submission.
As a result, asserted facts by the Complainant, that are not unreasonable, will be taken as true by this Panel.
Finally, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to decide on the remedy sought by the Complainant, this Panel will examine whether each of the following three elements is present:
(i) the disputed domain names registered by the Respondent are 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 disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
Consequently, this Panel shall further analyze the eventual concurrence of these three grounds in the present case.
The Complainant is required to establish the following two elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its trademark(s).
First, this Panel finds that the Complainant has clearly evidenced that it had registered trademark rights in NOVOTEL, MERCURE, and PULLMAN well before the disputed domain names were registered. Also, the Complainant has sufficiently demonstrated and evidenced that it had a lengthy use of its Trademarks for its commercial activities, in particular to hotels and restaurants services worldwide.
For the sake of completeness, this Panel further analyzed the Complainant’s contention with regard to the notoriety of the NOVOTEL, MERCURE, and PULLMAN trademarks. This Panel believes that in order to determine whether the Trademarks should be considered as well-known, various factual elements shall be taken into account, including the degree of knowledge and recognition of the marks in the relevant sector; the duration, extent and geographical area of any use and promotion of the marks; and the enforcement efforts and success of rights in the marks. This Panel finds that the trademarks NOVOTEL, MERCURE, and PULLMAN shall be considered, at least for the purposes of this administrative procedure, as well-known trademarks. Such conclusion is supported by previous UDRP decisions (see for instance ACCOR v. Domain ID Shield Service Co., Limited / Mr. Sakol Yoowiwat,WIPO Case No. D2012-0018; Accor and SoLuxury HMC v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. and Therese Kerr,WIPO Case No. D2009-0243; Accor S.A. v. Kristen Hoerl,WIPO Case No. D2007-1722; Accor v. Noldc Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2005-0016).
Secondly, the disputed domain names fully incorporate the Complainant’s distinctive and widely known NOVOTEL, MERCURE, and PULLMAN trademarks in which the Complainant has exclusive rights. This Panel finds on the basis of previous UDRP decisions that it is established that where the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s registered Trademarks as the dominant element, this may be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy (see ACCOR v. Domain ID Shield Service Co., Limited / Mr. Sakol Yoowiwat,WIPO Case No. D2012-0018; Accor and SoLuxury HMC v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. and Therese Kerr,WIPO Case No. D2009-0243).
Thirdly, this Panel finds, similarly to other UDRP panels, that the mere addition of a geographical term is not sufficient to provide any distinctiveness to a disputed domain name (see ACCOR v. Domain ID Shield Service Co., Limited / Mr. Sakol Yoowiwat,WIPO Case No. D2012-0018; Montage Hotels&Resorts, LLC v. Daniel Kirchhof/Unister GmbH,WIPO Case No. D2011-1042; Carlsberg A/S v. Personal / decohouse, decohouse,WIPO Case No. D2011-0972; ACCOR v. Vu Duy Truong,WIPO Case No. D2011-0093).
Consequently, this Panel finds that the disputed domain names that consist of the Complainant’s Trademark and a geographical term are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark.
Fourthly, this Panel finds on the basis of previous UDRP decisions that the mere addition of generic terms is, in general, insufficient to make a disputed domain name distinctive such that it is not confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark (see Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. v. TetraPak Global PH-AU, Gerald Smith,WIPO Case No. D2012-0847; Moncler S.r.l. v. xie guoren,WIPO Case No. D2010‑2161; Allianz SE v. Antonio Porchia,WIPO Case No. D2010-0694; Sanofi-Aventis, Aventis Inc., Aventisub II Inc. v. Yur Bar,WIPO Case No. D2010-0663).
Consequently, this Panel finds that the mere addition of the generic term “resort” to the Complainant’s well-known Trademarks in the disputed domain names <mercuresontraresort.com> and <novotelphuquoresort.com> does not eliminate the confusing similarity between the latter and the Trademarks.
Fifthly, this Panel finds that the addition of a hyphen in the disputed domain name <mercure-sontra.com> does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark MERCURE, nor to dispel the risk of confusing similarity, as it was found in previous UDRP decisions (see OLX Inc., OLX S.A. v. Privacy Protect / Generic Domains, WIPO Case No. D2012-1433; QSoft Consulting Limited v. Lotom Group S.A., WIPO Case No. DNL2009-0018; Royal Canin v. “Planet Media Group N.V.”, WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0009; Guinness UDV North America, Inc. v. UKJENT, WIPO Case No. D2001-0684).
Sixthly, this Panel finds, similarly to other UDRP panels, that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com” to the disputed domain names does not constitute an element so as to avoid confusing similarity for trademark purposes (see Volkswagen AG v. Privacy Protection Services,WIPO Case No. D2012-2066; The Coca-Cola Company v. David Jurkiewicz, WIPO Case No. DME2010-0008; Telecom Personal, S.A., v. NAMEZERO.COM, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0015; F. Hoffmann La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A., WIPO Case No. D2006-0451; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).
This Panel finds in the present case that the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s well-known trademarks NOVOTEL, MERCURE, and PULLMAN in their entirety with the addition of geographical terms, and the occasional addition of the generic term “resort” or a hyphen, ending with the suffix “.com”.
On the basis of the foregoing findings, and according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, this Panel finds and concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s NOVOTEL, MERCURE, and PULLMAN trademarks.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists circumstances, in particular but without limitation, which, if found by the Panel to be proved, demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy reads:
“When you receive a complaint, you should refer to paragraph 5 of the Rules of Procedure in determining how your response should be prepared. Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue”.
This Panel finds, in light of the Complainant’s asserted facts, that no license, permission or authorization of any kind to use the Complainant’s Trademarks has been granted to the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has no own rights in NOVOTEL, MERCURE, or PULLMAN.
Moreover, there is no evidence before this Panel to show that the Respondent was acting in pursuance of any prior rights or legitimate interests with respect to registering the disputed domain names. Indeed, the Complainant’s Trademarks were registered well before the registration of the disputed domain names.
Firstly, this Panel finds no evidence that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Indeed, each of the disputed domain names attracts Internet users to the Respondent’s own website “www.paradisedomain.com”, whereas in the past, the disputed domain names have directed Internet users to (i) inactive pages; (ii) the website at “www.vietnamdomainexchange.com”; (iii) parking pages displaying commercial links related to hotels of the Complainant or of its competitors; and, (iv) parking pages with pay-per-click links. This demonstrates the Respondent’s intent to benefit from the Complainant’s reputation by falsely suggesting it is the Trademarks owner and misleadingly diverting Internet users from the Complainant’s official websites to its own website. This Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to its website demonstrates the Respondent’s lack of a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names (see in the same way Accor and SoLuxury HMC v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. and Therese Kerr,WIPO Case No. D2009-0243).
Secondly, this Panel finds that there is no evidence that would suggest that the Respondent, as an individual, business, or other organization, has been commonly known by the disputed domain names.
Thirdly, this Panel finds that no evidence has been presented that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. In fact, this Panel has considered the Complainant’s assertions and evidence with regard to the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names, and believes after reviewing the website as evidenced by the Complainant, that the Respondent had full knowledge of the Trademarks and that its only intention is to gain profit by free riding on the good reputation of the Complainant.
For all the foregoing reasons, this Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names cannot be considered to be in accordance with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Accordingly, this Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy identifies, in particular but without limitation, four circumstances which, if found by this Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy reads:
“For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), 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 you have registered or you have 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 that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have 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 you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location”.
Each of the four circumstances in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, if found, is indicative of “registration and use of a domain name in bad faith”.
When assessing the bad faith, the following two elements should be considered: (1) whether the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its Trademarks when it registered the disputed domain names, and (2) whether the Respondent targeted the Complainant to benefit from confusion generated by the similarity between the disputed domain names and the Trademarks (see Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. blue crystal,WIPO Case No. D2012-0630; Avon Products, Inc. v. Mary Ultes,WIPO Case No. D2009-0471).
This Panel has considered the Complainant’s assertions and evidence with regard to the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names. In this respect, this Panel believes after reviewing the Respondent’s website in which the disputed domain names redirect to and its content as evidenced by the Complainant that the Respondent must have known and been aware of the rights in the prior well-known Trademarks and the associated services at the time of the registration of the disputed domain names.
Also, this Panel finds that given the fact that the Complainant’s NOVOTEL and MERCURE trademarks are not descriptive of anything and devoid of any meaning other than the services of the Complainant, it is very unlikely that the Respondent would have registered the disputed domain names incorporating the Trademarks without knowledge of the Trademarks (see Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Hightech Industries, Andrew Browne,WIPO Case No. D2010-0240; Volkswagen AG v. Swiss Recruitment, WIPO Case No. D2013-0534). This Panel also believes that it defies common sense to believe that the Respondent coincidentally selected these precise domain names without any knowledge of the Complainant and its Trademarks (see Asian World of Martial Arts v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. D2007-1415; Volkswagen AG v. Swiss Recruitment,WIPO Case No. D2013-0534). This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the disputed domain names, containing geographical terms, directly refer to the Complainant’s hotels in the regions concerned.
Consequently, this Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith.
This Panel has considered the Complainant’s assertions and evidence with regard to the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names. In this respect, this Panel believes after reviewing the website and its content as evidenced by the Complainant that the Respondent uses the disputed domain names to derive profits and for commercial gain by diverting Internet users to its website.
This Panel finds, similarly to other UDRP panels, that prior use by the Respondent of the disputed domain names to divert Internet users and to direct them to a webpage providing click through revenues evidences bad faith (see L’Oréal SA v. LV Kefeng,WIPO Case No. D2009-1231; Allstate Insurance Company v. Domain Supermarket, WIPO Case No. D2009-1175; Corbis Corporation v. RegisterFly.com / Whois Protection Service / surf advertising company / Joseph, Graham, WIPO Case No. D2006-0546).
Furthermore, this Panel considers that the previous diversion from the disputed domain names to parking pages displaying commercial links related to hotels and services not only of the Complainant, but also of its competitors, constitutes additional evidence of bad faith (Hardee’s Food Systems, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc. / ICS Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2012-1696; Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français (SNCF) v. Comdot Internet Services Private Limited./PrivacyProtect.org,WIPO Case No. D2008‑0025; Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Unasi, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2005-0556).
Consequently, this Panel finds that such misleading behaviour is indicative of use in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, on the part of the Respondent.
As a result, this Panel infers from such behaviour that the Respondent’s purpose in registering the disputed domain names appears to have been to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s Trademarks, and thus generate unjustified revenues.
In light of the foregoing, this Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith under the Policy.
For 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, <mercuresamson.com>, <mercure-sontra.com>, <mercuresontra.com>, <mercuresontraresort.com>, <novotelciputrahanoi.com>, <novoteldanang.com>, <novoteldanangpremier.com>, <novotelnhatrang.com>, <novotelphuquoc.com>, <novotelphuquocresort.com>, <pullmanhanoi.com>, <pullmansaigoncentre.com> <pullmansaigon.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Benoit Van Asbroeck
Sole Panelist
Date: April 23, 2014