Decisión del Panel Administrativo nº D2012-0553 of WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, June 06, 2012 (case Accor, SoLuxury HMC v. Yin Wei Fen)

• Resolution Date: June 06, 2012
• Issuing Organization: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
• Decision: Cancellation
• Dominio: Generic Domains

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Accor, SoLuxury HMC v. Yin Wei Fen

Case No. D2012-0553

1. The Parties

Complainants are Accor and SoLuxury HMC of Paris, France represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.

Respondent is Yin Wei Fen of Zhe Jiang, China.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names [pullmanskywayhotel.com] and [sofitelhyland-hotel.com] are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 19, 2012. On March 19, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 19, 2012, GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 22, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 11, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 12, 2012.

The Center appointed Yijun Tian as the sole panelist in this matter on May 1, 2012. 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

A. Complainant

Complainants are Accor and SoLuxury HMC, companies incorporated in Paris, France. Accor is a world leader in economic and mid-scale hotels, and a major player in upscale and luxury hospitality services, which operates more than 4,200 hotels in 90 countries worldwide. Accor owns numerous trademark registrations for marks that consist of or include the term “Pullman Hotels” worldwide, including International Trademark 937197 designating China since July 24, 2007 (Annex 15 to the Complaint). SoLuxury HMC is the Accor’s subsidiary, which operates in 52 countries worldwide. It owns numerous SOFITEL trademark registrations across the world, including International Trademark 939096, designating China since August 30, 2007 (Annex 16 to the Complaint)

In addition, Complainants operate domain names reflecting their marks in order to promote their services (Annexes 5 and 6 to the Complaint), including (among others): [sofitel.com] registered on April 11, 1997 and [pullmanhotels.com] registered on March 21, 1999.

B. Respondent

Respondent (identified as Yin Wei Fen of Zhe Jiang, China) registered the disputed domain names both on June 25, 2011. The disputed domain names resolve to websites displaying booking services and ascribing the addresses of the SOFITEL SHANGHAI HYLAND and PULLMAN SHANGHAI SKYWAY hotels respectively.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

(a) The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

- Complainants and their trademarks PULLMAN HOTELS AND RESORTS and SOFITEL enjoy a worldwide reputation.

- The disputed domain names are identical or at least confusingly similar to Complainants’ trademarks SOFITEL and PULLMAN.

- The disputed domain names reproduce Complainants’ trademarks in their entirety, which previous UDRP panels have considered to be well-known, including in China.

- The association of the term “hyland” in [sofitelhyland-hotel.com] to Complainants’ mark SOFITEL reinforces the likelihood of confusion because this domain name refers to a hotel operated by Complainants in China bearing the name of SOFITEL SHANGHAI HYLAND (Annex 8 to the Complaint).

- The association of “skyway” in [pullmanskywayhotel.com] to Complainants’ mark PULLMAN heightens the likelihood of confusion in the consumer’s mind as there is one PULLMAN hotel in Shanghai run under the name PULLMAN SHANGHAI SKYWAY (Annex 9 to the Complaint).

- The adjunction of the names of existing hotels used by Respondent to Complainants’ trademarks does not exclude user confusion. Such an addition rather increases the likelihood of confusion since Internet users may mistakenly believe that the hotels referred to in the disputed domain names are affiliated in some way to the Complainant, which is not the case.

- The association of the generic word “hotel” to Complainants’ marks reinforces the likelihood of confusion because the disputed domain names refer to Complaints’ main business.

- It have been well established by past UDRP panels that the mere addition of the extension “.com” is not taken into consideration when examining the identity or similarity between the Complainants’ marks and the disputed domain names.

- The sole adjunction of a hyphen in the domain name [sofitehyland-hotel.com] is not sufficient to lessen the risk of confusion between the disputed domain name and Complainants’ mark.

(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed...