{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101637", "time_of_filling": "2017-08-08 10:48:54", "domain_names": [ "ibisjakartaharmoni.com" ], "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Accor" ], "complainant_representative": "DREYFUS ET ASSOCIES", "respondent": [ "Hulmiho Ukolen" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nFactual and Legal Grounds\r\n(Policy, Paragraphs 4(a), (b), (c); Rules, Paragraph 3)\r\n\r\nComplainant is a French multinational hotel group that has operated for more than 45 years. It operates more than 4,000 hotels in 95 countries worldwide and around 570,000 rooms, from economy to upscale. The group includes hotel chains such as PULLMAN, NOVOTEL, MERCURE and IBIS.\r\n\r\nIn particular, Complainant’s IBIS brands consist of 1,800 hotels worldwide. The brands comprise of IBIS HOTELS with 1,088 hotels worldwide in 65 countries, IBIS STYLES HOTELS counts 293 hotels in 25 countries and IBIS BUDGET HOTELS with 570 addresses throughout 17 countries as of December 31, 2017. IBIS branded properties are also present in Indonesia with 58 hotels. IBIS counts approximately 16 hotels in the city of Jakarta, one of them being named “Ibis Jakarta Harmoni”.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click page displaying sponsored links related to hotel services as well as goods and services in a variety of other fields.\r\n\r\nBetween March 11, 2016, and June 13, 2017, Complainant sent a number of cease-and-desist letters to the email address listed in the Whois record for the domain name. The hosting company and the concerned Registrar were copied on many of these letters. As these efforts did not lead to a resolution of the dispute, the present UDRP procedure was initiated against the Respondent.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings the Panel which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nA.\tThe domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;\r\n(Policy, Paragraph 4(a) (i); Rules, Paragraphs 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1))\r\n\r\nComplainant owns and operates several hotels under the trademark IBIS, which is a registered and well-known trademark, protected worldwide particularly in relation to hotels and restaurants services.\r\n\r\nIndeed, the domain name in dispute reproduces Complainant’s well-known trademark IBIS in its entirety. The disputed domain name is extremely similar to Complainant’s Hotel name “Ibis Jakarta Harmoni” and the addition of these geographic terms to the IBIS trademark enhances the likelihood of confusion since it might lead internet users into wrongly believing that the said domain name is endorsed by Complainant and is related to its hotel.\r\nThe extension “.com” is not to be taken into consideration when examining the identity or similarity between the Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, the domain name creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s IBIS trademarks. It is likely that this domain name could mislead Internet users into thinking that it is, in some way, associated with Complainant and thus may heighten the risk of confusion.\r\n\r\nB.\tThe Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;\r\n(Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(ii); Rules, Paragraph 3(b)(ix)(2))\r\n\r\nRespondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way nor has he been authorised by Complainant to use and register its trademarks, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the aforesaid trademarks. \r\n\r\nThe registration of the IBIS trademark preceded the registration of the disputed domain name by many years. The domain name is so identical to the famous IBIS trademark of Complainant, and in particular to the hotel “Ibis Jakarta Harmoni”, that Respondent cannot reasonably pretend it was intending to develop a legitimate activity through the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nMoreover, Respondent is neither known by the name of IBIS nor in any way affiliated with Complainant, nor authorised or licensed to use the trademark IBIS, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the aforementioned trademark. \r\nBesides, Respondent did not demonstrate use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Indeed, the domain name resolves to a pay-per-click parking page displaying commercial links related to services of hotel industry, including booking services, notably. Consequently, Respondent fails to show any intention of non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.\r\nAlso, it seems that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with a privacy shield service to hide his identity and prevent Complainant from contacting him. Thus, such a behavior highlights the fact that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nIn addition, after the present Complaint was filed, the Registrar provided the identity and contact details of the Registrant for the domain name. It appears that the contact details are manifestly false. This confirms the absence of any legitimate interest of the registrant in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nFor all of the above-cited reasons, it is undoubtedly established that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name in dispute under Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nC.\tThe domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. \r\n(Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(iii), 4(b); Rules, paragraph 3(b)(ix)(3))\r\n\r\n1)\tRegistration in bad faith\r\n\r\nIt is implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant when he registered the disputed domain name. Bad faith can be found where respondent “knew or should have known” of Complainant’s trademark rights and, nevertheless registered a domain name in which he had no right or legitimate interest.\r\n\r\nFirstly, Complainant and its IBIS trademark are well-known throughout the world. Secondly, in many prior UDRP decisions the Panel considered that Complainant’s IBIS trademark is also widely-known. Thirdly, the composition of the disputed domain name is too similar to Complainant’s IBIS trademarks, its own domain names and the name of its hotel “Hotel Ibis Jakarta Harmoni”. Finally, the domain name in dispute redirects towards a page with commercial links related to services of hotel industry, including booking services, notably those of Complainant and its competitors.\r\n\r\nTherefore, it is impossible that Respondent was not aware of Complainant’s trademarks and activities at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nBad faith has already been found where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith. Thus, given the reputation of the IBIS trademark, registration in bad faith can be inferred.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, Respondent registered the domain name through a privacy shield service to hide his identity and contact details, thus, preventing Complainant from contacting him. A deliberate concealment of identity and contact information may in itself indicate registration in bad faith.\r\n\r\nUnder Section 2 of the ICANN Policy, it is established that when someone registers a domain name, he represents and warrants to the registrar that, to his knowledge, the registration of the domain name will not infringe the rights of any third party. Which means that it was Registrant’s duty to verify that the registration of the disputed domain name would not infringe the rights of any third party before registering the said domain name.\r\n\r\nMoreover, a quick trademark search for the word IBIS would have revealed to Respondent the existence of Complainant and its trademarks. Respondent’s failure to conduct such a search is a contributory factor to its bad faith. Supposing that Respondent was not aware of the possibility of searching trademarks online before registering a domain name, a simple search via Google or any other search engine using the keyword “IBIS” or “IBIS JAKARTA HARMONI” demonstrates that all first results relate to Complainant’s field of activities or news.\r\n\r\nIn this day and age of the Internet and advancement in information technology, the reputation of brands and trademarks transcend national borders. Taking into account the worldwide reputation of Complainant and its trademarks, as well as the strong reputation of Complainant, it is hard to believe that Respondent was unaware of the existence of Complainant and its trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. Knowledge of Complainant’s intellectual property rights, including trademarks, at the time of registration of a disputed domain name proves bad faith registration.\r\n\r\nIt would have been pertinent for Respondent to provide an explanation of its choice in the disputed domain name, failing which a Panel may draw the conclusion that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with intent to create an impression of an association with Complainant and its products. However, Respondent neither tried to defend his rights nor stated any valid arguments to justify the registration of the domain name in response to Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter.\r\n\r\nFinally, after filing the Complaint, the Registrar provided the identity and contact details of the registrant. It appears that the contact details of the registrant are manifestly false. This is an additional element that confirms the registration of the domain name in bad faith. \r\n\r\nConsequently, in view of the above-mentioned circumstances, it is established that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\n2)\tUse in bad faith\r\n\r\nSome elements may be put forward to support the finding that Respondent also uses the domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nIn the absence of any license or permission from Complainant to use its widely known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could reasonably be claimed.\r\n\r\nAs the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, a likelihood of confusion is presumed, and such confusion will inevitably result in the diversion of Internet traffic from Complainant’s site to Respondent’s site.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, directing Internet users to a webpage displaying commercial links related to Complainant’s field of activities is an additional proof of bad faith.\r\n\r\nBesides, the use of a domain name to point to a website that offers sponsored links to other websites providing services or goods which are similar to those offered by a complainant’s own website is evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe clear inference to be drawn from the Respondent’s operations is that he is trying to benefit from the fame of the Complainant’s trademarks.\r\n\r\nIt is more likely than not, that Respondent’s primary motive in registering and using the domain name was to capitalize on or otherwise take advantage of Complainant’s trademark rights, through the creation of initial interest of confusion.\r\n\r\nFinally, it can be deduced that Respondent registered the domain name to prevent Complainant from using its trademark in the disputed domain name. This type of conduct also constitutes evidence of Respondent’s bad faith.\r\n\r\nAll aforementioned circumstances confirm that the disputed domain name is used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nConsequently, it is established that the Respondent both registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith in accordance with Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy).", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).", "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy).", "procedural_factors": "The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Steven M. Levy, Esq." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-09-04 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "Complainant owns a number of trademark registrations in various countries for the trademark IBIS in relation to hotel and restaurant services (e.g. International trademark \"IBIS\" n° 541432 registered on July 17, 1989, covering services in classes 38, 39 and 42; Indonesian Trademark “IBIS”, n° IDM000076524 registered on June 6, 2006, covering services in class 43; and European trademark \"IBIS\" n° 001527720 registered on June 06, 2001, covering services in classes 16, 39 and 42).", "decision_domains": { "IBISJAKARTAHARMONI.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }