Rightsy — Protect your rights: IP search and flat-fee legal services

Search trademarks

ACCOR v. Yosi Hasidim

WIPO Case No. D2001-0392

Outcome
Transfer
Domain names
accor-hotel.com
Complainant
ACCOR
Respondent
Yosi Hasidim
Panelist
Geert Glas
Decided
11 Jul 2001
Language
English

Source: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. Official copy: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-0392.html

WIPO Arbitration

and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE

PANEL DECISION

Accor v.

Yossi Hasidim

Case No

D2001-0392

1. The Parties

The Complainant in this

administrative proceedings is ACCOR, a company organized under French laws,

located at Tour Maine Montparnasse, 33, avenue du Maine, 75755 Paris, France

and represented by Nathalie Dreyfus with offices at 19, rue de Milan, 75009

Paris, France, hereinafter the "Complainant".

The Respondent is Yossi

Hasidim, with an address at Hanesieim, 48, Petah Tikva, 49550 Israel, hereinafter

the "Respondent".

2. Domain Name and Registrar

The domain name at issue

is <accor-hotel.com>, hereinafter the "Domain Name". The registrar

is Network Solutions, Inc. and the Domain Name was registered on November 26,

1999.

3. Procedural History

The WIPO Arbitration and

Mediation Center, hereinafter "the Center" received the Complainant's

Complaint and the exhibits on March 19, 2001, in hardcopy and on March 16, 2001,

by email.

On March 21, 2001, the

Center transmitted the acknowledgement of receipt of Complaint to the Complainant

by email.

On March 22, 2001, the

Center transmitted via email to Network Solutions, Inc., a request for registrar

verification relating to this case. On March 28, 2001, Network Solutions, Inc.

transmitted via email to the Center, Network Solutions’ verification response,

confirming that the Domain Name is registered with Network Solutions, that the

Respondent is the current registrant of the Domain Name and that the administrative,

billing and technical contacts are also known as the Respondent. It confirmed

also that the Network Solutions’ 5.0 Agreement is in effect and that the Domain

Name registration status is "Active".

On March 30, 2001, the

Center sent by email to the Complainant a request to amend the registrar's address

and the Mutual Jurisdiction paragraph. A copy of this request was also sent

by email to the Respondent.

On April 24, 2001, the

Center received by email a modified version of the Complaint. On April 25, 2001,

the Center acknowledged by email to the Complainant that the version sent on

April 24 did not contain any of the amendments required in the email of March

30, 2001.

On May 3, 2001, the Center

received by email an amendment to the Complaint as required in the email of

March 30, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the same was received in hard copy.

On May 8, 2001, the Center

sent to the Complainant an email regarding deficiencies in the amendment to

the Complaint, such as the address used for sending a copy of the Complaint

to the Registrar was incorrect and the absence of signature.

On May 11, 2001, the Center

received the hardcopy of the second amendment to the Complaint.

On May 17, 2001, the Center

completed its review of the Complaint to verify whether it satisfied the formal

requirements of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the

Policy), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules),

and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

(the Supplemental Rules).

On May 17, 2001, the Center

transmitted to the Respondent the notification of complaint and commencement

of the administrative proceeding via post/courier, fax and email. This notification

was copied to the Complainant via email. The Center advised that the Response

was due by June 5, 2001.

On June 7, 2001, having

received no Response from the Respondent, the Center issued to the email address

of both parties, a notification of respondent default. No reply was received

by the Respondent to the notification of respondent default.

On June 13, 2001, in view

of the Complainant’s designation of a single member Administrative Panel, the

Center invited Mr. Geert Glas to serve as a panelist and transmitted to him

the request for declaration of impartiality and independence and a statement

of acceptance.

Having received, on June

14, 2001, Mr. Geert Glas' declaration of impartiality and independence and his

statement of acceptance, the Center transmitted by email on June 19, 2001, to

the parties, a notification of appointment of administrative panel and projected

decision date, informing the parties that Mr. Geert Glas was formally appointed

as the sole panelist. The projected decision date is July 2, 2001. The sole

panelist finds that the Administrative Panel was properly constituted and appointed

in accordance with the Rules and Supplemental Rules.

Having reviewed the communication

records in the case file, the Administrative Panel finds that the Center has

discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules "to employ

reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent."

Therefore, the Administrative Panel shall issue its Decision based on the Complaint,

the Policy, the Rules, the Supplemental Rules and the verifiable facts but without

the benefit of any Response from Respondent.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a hotel

management company which runs business as well as leisure hotels in 90 countries,

and also in Israel where the Respondent is a resident.

The Complainant is the

owner of several French and international trademarks. Several of its trademarks

consist of the word "ACCOR" as such, or accompanied by other elements.

These trademarks have been registered for the goods and services of classes

16, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42 and are mainly used to offer to the public, goods and

services in the hotel, tourism and travel industry.

It appears from Network

Solutions’ verification response that the Respondent is the registrant of the

Domain Name. The Respondent registered the Domain Name on November 26, 1999.

The website linked to the

Domain Name is not active.

5. Parties Contentions

a. Complainant

The Complainant contends

that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark.

The Complainant contends

that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the

Domain Name since it is neither known by the Domain Name in question, nor has

it made any legitimate non commercial or fair use of the Domain Name, nor has

it made any use or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection

with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Complainant contends

that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith since the Respondent

has obviously registered a domain name consisting of the Complainant's trademark

with the word "hotel" in such a manner that the Domain Name describes

precisely the services offered by the Complainant and therefore creates a confusion

with the Complainant's trademark. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent

has registered the Domain Name and for the purpose of preventing the Complainant

from using its trademark in a corresponding domain name. It contends that the

lack of reaction from the Respondent also shows bad faith.

b. Respondent

Respondent has not contested

the allegations of the Complaint and is in default.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15(a) of the

Rules instructs the Administrative Panel as to the principles the Administrative

Panel is to use in determining the dispute: "A Panel shall decide a Complaint

on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the

Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

Applied to this case, Paragraph

4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:

(1) that the Domain

Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the

trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and,

(2) that the Respondent

has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and,

(3) that the Domain

Name has been registered and used in bad faith.

a. Identity or confusing

similarity

The trademarks of the Complainant

consist of the word "ACCOR" alone or accompanied by other elements;

Even in this last configuration, the word "ACCOR" remains the dominant

and distinctive element of the trademark.

The sector of activity

of the Complainant is tourism, travel and hotel facilities.

It is obvious that although

the Respondent's Domain Name is composed of the word "ACCOR" followed

by the word "hotel", the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the

Complainant's trademark. Firstly, because it includes the Complainant's trademark

and merely adds the generic word "hotel". Secondly, because by this

combination, the Domain Name precisely describes the Complainant's sector of

business.

The Administrative Panel

therefore finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's

trademark and finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy

is satisfied.

b. Rights or Legitimate

Interests

The Complainant has not

licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark or to apply

for any domain name incorporating its trademark.

Moreover, by not filing

a Response, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could

indicate the existence of any right or legitimate interest he would have in

the Domain Name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph

4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.

c. Registration and

Use in Bad Faith

When registering the Domain

Name, the Respondent knowingly and purposefully chose a name which is confusingly

similar to Complainant's trademark.

Indeed, the choice of the

Domain Name by the Respondent is very unlikely to have resulted from a mere

coincidence.

The Respondent could not

have been unaware of the Complainant's trademark, when choosing a domain name

consisting of the Complainant's trademark and the word "hotel" with

the result that the Domain Name describes exactly the services offered by the

Complainant. By doing so, the Respondent intentionally created a situation which

is at odds with the legal rights and obligations of the parties.

The website related to

the Domain Name was inactive in March 2001, when a public notary, at the request

of the Complainant, certified so, and still is at the time when the Administrative

Panel is considering this case.

The Respondent is in default

to respond in this proceedings, thereby failing to invoke any element or circumstance

which could indicate the good faith nature of his registration and use of Domain

Name. As a consequence, the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any bona fide

use of the Domain Name.

Considering the lack of

interest of the Respondent in the Domain Name, in the defense of his rights

and interests as to the Domain Name and the above facts, the Administrative

Panel finds that the Complainant has met its burden under section 4(a)(iii)

of the Policy and that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name

in bad faith.

7. Decision

In light of the foregoing,

the Administrative Panel decides that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent

is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks, that the Respondent

has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that

the Respondent’s Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Accordingly, pursuant to

Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy, the Administrative Panel requires that the registration

of the Domain Name <hotel-accor.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Geert Glas

Sole Panelist

Dated: July

2, 2001

More cases by this complainant

Open this decision on Rightsy