Decisión del Panel Administrativo nº D2013-1736 of WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, November 18, 2013 (case Accor v. Brad Jones)
| Resolution Date | November 18, 2013 |
| Issuing Organization | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center |
| Decision | Transfer |
| Dominio | Generic Domains |
The Complainant is Accor of Paris, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Brad Jones of Boulder, Colorado, United States of America.
The disputed domain names [suitenovotelparisportedemontreuil.com] and [mercuremadridsantodomingo.com] are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 8, 2013. On October 8, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On October 8, 2013, 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 the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 10, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for the Response was October 30, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 31, 2013.
The Center appointed Christian Schalk as the sole panelist in this matter on November 6, 2013. 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.
The Panel has reviewed the record and confirms the Complaint’s compliance with the formal requirements. The Complaint was properly notified to the Respondent in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules. The language of the proceedings is English.
The Complainant is a leading provider of low budget and mid-scale hotels as well as a major player in upscale and luxury hospitality services. The Complainant is active for more than 45 years and operates over 439,000 rooms in more than 3,400 hotels in 92 countries. The Complainant has hotels also in the U.S., where the Respondent lives. The Complainant operates several hotels under the trademark SUITE NOVOTEL and MERCURE. In Paris, the Complainant owns among other hotels the four stars hotel “Suite Novotel Paris Porte de Montreuil” and in Madrid the “Mercure Madrid Santo Domingo” hotel. The Complainant received the Tourism for Tomorrow Award from the world Travel and Tourism Council in 2010.
The Complainant’s trademark portfolio contains among others the following trademark rights:
- International Trademark registration No. 1039192 for the word and device mark SUITE NOVOTEL of April 20, 2010, covering goods and services in the International Classes 35 and 43;
- International Trademark registration No. 847330 for the word and device mark MERCURE of December 13, 2004, covering goods and services in the International Classes 39, 41 and 43.
Previous UDRP panels have considered these trademarks as well-known. See, for instance, ACCOR v. Domain ID Shield Service Co., Limited / Mr. Sakol Yoowiwat,[WIPO Case No. D2012-0018]; Accor v. Above.com Domain Privacy/ Belcanto Investment Group,[WIPO Case No. D2012-1179] and ACCOR v. GBT,[WIPO Case No. D2005-0809].
The Complainant owns also several domain names reflecting its trademarks, for instance,
- [mercure.com], registered on April 16, 1996;
- [novotel.com], registered on April 10,1997;
- [hotel-mercure.net], registered on May 21, 2003;
- [suitenovotel.com], registered on March 18, 2010.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name [suitenovotelparisportedemontreuil.com] on March 25, 2013 and the disputed domain name [mercuremadridsantodomingo.com] on April 10, 2013.
The website to which the disputed domain name [mercuremadridsantodomingo.com] resolves, contains information on the hotel Mercure Madrid Santo Domingo in Madrid, its surroundings and nearby attractions. Furthermore, it displays also the link “Hoteles En Madrid” which apparently provides also links to other hotels in this city. In addition there is also an advertisement for the booking platform “airbnb” where it is written “Madrid is waiting for you. Booking a unique space. airbnb”.
The disputed domain name [suitenovotelparisportedemontreuil.com] resolves to a website with a very similar design. This website contains information on the hotel Suite Novotel Paris Porte de Montreuil in Paris. Furthermore, it displays the links “Cheap Hotel in Paris”, “Compare cheap Hotel rates” and “5 star Hotel Paris”.
After the Complainant became aware of the registration of the disputed domain names by the Respondent, it sent a cease and desist letter via registered letter and e-mail to the Respondent on July 9, 2013. Despite several reminders on July 16, 2013, July 23, 2013 and July 31, 2013, the Respondent never replied. Furthermore, the registered letter returned to the sender because the Respondent was not found under the address mentioned in the Whois database.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial