WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Société des Hotels Méridien v. Ahmed Al-Attar, Secure Works Est.

Case No. D2016-1369

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Société des Hotels Méridien of Paris, France, represented by Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, PC, United States of America (“United States”).

The Respondent is Ahmed Al-Attar, Secure Works Est. of Kuwait.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <lemeridien.club> is registered with 101domain, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 5, 2016. On July 6, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 6, 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 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 8, 2016. In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Rules, the due date for Response was July 28, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 3, 2016.

The Center appointed Brigitte Joppich as the sole panelist in this matter on August 12, 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 paragraph 7 of the Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant currently owns a portfolio of more than 100 luxury and upscale LE MERIDIEN hotels in over 50 countries worldwide, the majority of which are located in the world’s major cities and resort communities. Among the Complainant’s many LE MERIDIEN properties is the Le Meridien Mina Seyahi Beach Resort & Marina in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The Complainant’s LE MERIDIEN hotels have received numerous awards, including recently being named one of the top fifteen hotel and resort brands in the world in the Luxury Brand Status Index survey conducted by the New York-based Luxury Institute.

The Complainant owns hundreds of trademark registrations for the LE MERIDIEN marks throughout the world, inter alia European trademark registration no. 5821012 for “Le MERIDIEN” (stylized), registered on March 6, 2008, and Kuwait trademark registration no. 112782 “LE MERIDIEN”, registered on June 27, 2011 (the “LE MERIDIEN Marks”). The Complainant’s trademarks mainly cover hotel and resort services, travel services, and various related goods and services. In addition, the Complainant owns hundreds of domain names, including <lemeridienhotels.com>.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 7, 2015 and has been used in connection with a website which mirrored the Complainant’s official website for the Le Meridien Mina Seyahi Beach Resort & Marina in Dubai, U.A.E.

The Complainant wrote to the Respondent concerning the registration and use of the disputed domain name on January 15, 2015. In response, the Respondent explained that he registered the disputed domain name in order to provide it as a gift to the manager of the Le Meridien Mina Seyahi Beach Resort & Marina in Dubai, U.A.E. and claimed to be a personal friend of the manager of this property. Having been informed by the Complainant that managers of individual LE MERIDIEN hotels are not allowed to own domain names incorporating the LE MERIDIEN trademark, the Respondent agreed to transfer the disputed domain name as requested in the Complainant’s initial letter. Despite repeated assurances from the Respondent that the disputed domain name would be transferred as promised, the transfer was never completed.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is given in the present case.

(1) The disputed domain name is identical to the famous LE MERIDIEN Marks as it consists only of the Complainant’s registered trademark and as the gTLD “.club” cannot be taken into consideration when judging confusing similarity.

(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use LE MERIDIEN Marks in domain names or in any other manner, as the Respondent was well aware of the fame of the LE MERIDIEN Marks given his use of the disputed domain name to display a mirrored version of one of the Complainant’s official websites, and as the Respondent admits that his only reason for registering the disputed domain name was to transfer control of the disputed domain name as a gift to one of the Complainant’s managers.

(3) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. With regard to bad faith registration, the Complainant states that the LE MERIDIEN Marks have already been found to be “among the most famous trademarks in the travel and leisure industry” with “widespread international recognition”, that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the LE MERIDIEN Marks when registering the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent admitted to registering the disputed domain name with the sole intent of transferring it to the manager of a LE MERIDIEN property as a gift. With regard to bad faith use, the Complainantargues that the Respondent’s redirection to a mirrored version of Complainant’s official website without authorization is evidence of bad faith, and that is it well established that the registration of a well-known trademark as a domain name and its commercial use evidences the bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s well established LE MERIDIEN Marks and is identical to such marks.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Even though the Policy requires the complainant to prove that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, it is the consensus view among UDRP panelists that a complainant has to make only a prima facie case to fulfill the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. As a result, the burden of coming forward with evidence of the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name will then shift to the respondent.

The Complainant has substantiated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has fulfilled its obligations under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Based on the evidence before the Panel, the Panel cannot find any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent either. The Respondent stated that he registered the disputed domain name to transfer it to one of the Complainant’s managers as a gift. This does not confer rights or legitimate interests under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy and the Panel finds it to be more likely than not that the Respondent’s argument is merely pretexual and made in an effort to avoid these UDRP proceedings .

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name under paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant and its rights in the LE MERIDIEN Marks as he stated that he registered the disputed domain name to transfer it to one of the Complainant’s managers as a gift and because he used the disputed domain name in connection with a copy of one of the Complainant’s websites. As noted above, the Panel finds this argumentation to be pretexual and finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

As to bad faith use, by fully incorporating the LE MERIDIEN Marks into the disputed domain name and by using the disputed domain name in connection with a copy of the Complainant’s website, the Respondent was in all likelihood trying to divert traffic intended for the Complainant’s website to its own for commercial gain as set out under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel is therefore satisfied that the Respondent also used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and that the Complainant satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of 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 disputed domain name <lemeridien.club> be transferred to the Complainant.

Brigitte Joppich
Sole Panelist
Date: August 25, 2016