Decisión del Panel Administrativo nº D2018-1576 of WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, September 18, 2018 (case Accor and SoLuxury HMC v. Ayman Morsy, Vcreation)
| Resolution Date | September 18, 2018 |
| Issuing Organization | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center |
| Decision | Transfer |
| Dominio | Generic Domains |
Complainants are Accor and SoLuxury HMC of Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
Respondent is Ayman Morsy, Vcreation of Cairo, Egypt.
The disputed domain name [pgsofitel.com] (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 12, 2018. On July 12, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 12, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 20, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 9, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 10, 2018.
The Center appointed Christopher S. Gibson as the sole panelist in this matter on August 17, 2018. 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.
Complainants in this administrative proceeding are the French companies, Accor and SoLuxury HMC (Accor’s subsidiary). Complainant Accor is a world leader in economic and mid-scale hotels, and a major player in upscale and luxury hospitality services. For more than 45 years, Complainant Accor has provided customers with expertise acquired in this core business. Complainant Accor operates more than 4,100 hotels in 100 countries worldwide with over 600,000 rooms, from economy to upscale. Complainants’ group includes hotel chains such as Raffles, Sofitel, Onefinestay, Fairmont, MGallery, Pullman, Swissotel, Grand Mercure, Novotel, Mama Shelter, Mercure and Ibis. Complainant Accor is also present in Egypt with 23 hotels including four Sofitel hotels.
In 1964, SOFITEL Hotels & Resorts was created as the first French international hospitality brand. Today the SOFITEL brand also encompasses the Sofitel Legend, the SO SOFITEL and the MGallery by SOFITEL.
Complainants own numerous trademark registrations around the world, including the following trademark registrations:
- International trademark SOFITEL No. 863332, designating Egypt (among others), registered on August 26, 2005, duly renewed, covering services in classes 35, 39 and 43;
- International trademark No. 642172, registered on August 31, 1995, duly renewed, covering services in classes 35, 36, 37 and 42;
- European Union Trade Mark SOFITEL No. 004303277, filed on March 22, 2005 and registered on February 3, 2006, duly renewed, covering services in classes 35, 39 and 43.
Complainants operate the following domain name reflecting its trademark in order to promote its services, [sofitel.com], which was registered on April 11, 1997.
Complainants made investigations concerning the Domain Name and found that an email server had been configured for it, thus raising concerns by Complainants of the risk of phishing. On July 4, 2017, Complainants sent a cease-and-desist letter to Respondent via postal letter and email on the basis of Complainants’ trademark rights. However, no reply was received from Respondent despite several reminders. The postal version of the cease-and-desist letter was returned to Complainants marked as undelivered.
On July 4, 2017, Complainants also sent a notification to the email service provider to request the deactivation of the email server set up for the Domain Name and any other email service linked to the Domain Name, followed by several reminders. On July 11, 2017, the email service provider replied to Complainants and asked for complete details on Complainant’s brand. Complainant sent an email on July 13, 2017 to the email service provider with the requested details and reiterated its request for the deactivation of the email server set up for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial