WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Accor v. DreamHost, Long Giang

Case No. D2014-0196

1. The Parties

Complainant is Accor of Paris, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.

Respondent is DreamHost, Long Giang of Brea, California, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <accorglobalhospitality.com> is registered with New Dream Network, LLC dba DreamHost.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 7, 2014. On February 7, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. As the Registrar did not submit its verification response, the Center sent a first formal reminder on March 5, 2014 and a second formal reminder on March 11, 2014 to the Registrar. The Registrar subsequently transmitted to the Centerits verification response..

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 13, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 2, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 2, 2014.

The Center appointed Keiji Kondo as the sole panelist in this matter on June 2, 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

Complainant Accor operates more than 3,500 hotels in 92 countries worldwide. Complainant group includes notable hotel chains such as PULLMAN, NOVOTEL, MERCURE and IBIS. The world Travel and Tourism Council awards the Complainant the Tourism for Tomorrow Award 2010.

Complainant owned ACCOR HOSPITALITY trademark and the domain name: <accorhospitality.com> before the disputed domain name, which was registered on September 5, 2013.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

(1) Identical or confusingly similar

Complainant is notably the owner of the following ACCOR HOSPITALITY trademark registration: International trademark No. 944343 dated of September 6, 2007 and covering goods and services in classes 16, 36 and 43.

In addition, Complainant operates, among other, domain names reflecting its trademarks in order to promote its services:

- <accor.cn> registered on April 18, 2003;

- <accorhotels.com> registered on April 30, 1998;

- <accorhospitality.com> registered on March 14, 2007.

The disputed domain name <accorglobalhospitality.com> reproduces the trademark ACCOR HOSPITALITY in its entirety. There is a confusing similarity arising from the exact reproduction of Complainant’s trademark ACCOR HOSPITALITY in the disputed domain name as Internet users may confuse it with the domain name <accorhospitality.com> which is registered by Complainant.

In addition, “global” is a generic term and “.com” is a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”).

Therefore, Internet users could come to believe that the disputed domain name <accorglobalhospitality.com> belongs to Complainant.

Accordingly, by registering the disputed domain name, Respondent created a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark. It is likely that the disputed domain name could mislead Internet users into thinking that this is, in some way, associated with Complainant.

For all of the above mentioned reasons, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark ACCOR in which Complainant has rights.

(2) No rights or legitimate interests

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way and have 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 <accorglobalhospitality.com> by many years.

The disputed domain name is so identical to the Complainant’s well-known trademark ACCOR that Respondent cannot reasonably pretend it was intending to develop a legitimate activity through the disputed domain name <accorglobalhospitality.com>.

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, 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. Indeed, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page. Consequently, Respondent fails to show any intention of noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

Considering the exchange of communications with Respondent , it appears that the only reason why Respondent registered the disputed domain name was for the purpose of selling it to Complainant for valuable consideration since there has been a proposal for sale of the disputed domain name hinting towards out-of-pocket costs.

Also, according to an online dictionary, the term “accor” has no meaning in English.

Furthermore, it seems that Respondent registered the disputed domain name fraudulently to hide its identity and prevent Complainant from contacting it. Thus, such a behavior highlights the fact that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

For all of the above-cited reasons, it is undoubtedly established that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name.

(3) Bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name

(a) Registration in bad faith

ACCOR trademark is widely known worldwide.

It is implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant when the disputed domain name was registered. Firstly, Complainant is well-known throughout the world.

In light of the reputation of Complainant’s trademark ACCOR, Respondent’s reproduction of the ACCOR trademark in its entirety clearly proves that Respondent was aware of the existence of Complainant’s trademark.

Bad faith has already been found where a domain name is so obviously connected with a wellknown trademark that its very use by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith.

Moreover, supposing that Respondent was not aware of the possibility of searching trademarks online before registering the disputed domain name, a simple search via Google or any other search engine using the keyword “Accor” shows that all of the first results relate to Complainant’s hotels.

Respondents’ failure to do so is a contributory factor to its bad faith.

In these days and age of the Internet and advancement in information technology, the reputation of brands and trademarks transcends national borders. Taking into account the worldwide reputation of Complainant and its trademark, as well as the high level of notoriety of Complainant, it is hard to believe that Respondent was unaware of the existence of Complainant and its trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.

As mentioned above, Respondent registered the disputed domain name through a privacy shield service to conceal its identity and contact details.

In addition, the fact that the disputed domain name is inactive suggests evident bad faith behind the registration.

Consequently, in view of the abovementioned circumstances, it is established that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

(b) Use in bad faith

Bad faith can be found where respondent “knew or should have known” of Complainant’s trademarks rights and, nevertheless registered a domain name in which it had no rights or legitimate interests.

As previously indicated, there is little doubt in this case that, at all times, Respondent was not aware that ACCOR enjoyed a substantial reputation worldwide.

The disputed domain name <accorglobalhospitality.com> is currently inactive. Nevertheless, this state of inactivity does not mean that the disputed domain name is used in good faith. Indeed, passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith.

Reproducing famous trademarks in a domain name in order to attract Internet users to an inactive website cannot be regarded as fair use or use in good faith.

Finally, in this Panel’s assessment, it is likely that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to prevent Complainant from using their trademark in the disputed domain name. According to prior UDRP decisions, this type of conduct constitutes evidence of Respondent’s bad faith.

Respondent’s immediate offer to sell the disputed domain name despite having being summoned to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant free of charge through a cease-and-desist letter, without giving any reasons why it had registered the disputed domain name or without contesting Complainant’s trademark, are clear indications that he was aware of Complainant’s trademark when he registered the disputed domain name.

This behavior is a strong indication that Respondent hoped to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant or to a competitor of Complainant which is a clear evidence of registration and use in bad faith.

The clear inference to be drawn from Respondents’ operations is that it is trying to benefit from the fame of the Complainant’s marks.

It is more likely, that Respondent’s primary motive in registering and using the disputed domain name was to capitalize on or otherwise take advantage of Complainant’s trademark rights, through the creation of initial interest of confusion.

Moreover, in this Panel’s view, there is no doubt that many Internet users attempting to visit Complainant’s websites have ended up on the webpage set up by Respondent. Indeed, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. Such use of the disputed domain name was not authorized by Complainant.

Consequently, it is established that the Respondent both registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant’s ACCOR trademark and ACCOR HOSPITALITY trademark were highly well-known before the registration of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name consists of “accor”, “global”, “hospitality” and “.com” and reproduces the trademark ACCOR HOSPITALITY in its entirety.

“Accor” has no meaning in English without the Complainant’s trademark. The term “global” is generic and “.com” is a gTLD. Consequently, “global” and “.com” have no impact on the avoidance of confusingly similar.

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way and has not been authorized by the 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 interest in the disputed domain name. The registration of several ACCOR trademarks preceded the registration of the disputed domain name <accorglobalhospitality.com> by many years.

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.

Therefore, the panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

ACCOR and ACCOR HOSPITALITY were well-known trademarks worldwide before the registration of the disputed domain name.

As notability of Complainant’s trademark, it seems unlikely that Respondent was not aware of the trademark.

The disputed domain name includes Complainant’s trademark in its entirety.

No license or authorization of any kind has been given by Complainant to Respondent to use the trademark.

Moreover, Respondent registered the disputed domain name through a privacy shield service to conceal its identity and contact details.

In view of the abovementioned circumstances, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The disputed domain name <accorglobalhospitality.com> is currently inactive. Nevertheless, this state of inactivity does not mean that the disputed domain name is used in good faith.

The Panel notes than, in exchange of communications with Complainant, Respondent offered for sale the disputed domain name.

The behavior of Respondent indicates that Respondent hoped to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant or to a competitor of Complainant.

Therefore, considering the abovementioned circumstances, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.

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 disputed domain name <accorglobalhospitality.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Keiji Kondo
Sole Panelist
Date: June 19, 2014