The Complainant, Aman Group S.à r.l., is a luxury hospitality group, founded in 1988 with the opening of Amanpuri in Phuket, Thailand. The Complainant operates approximately 36 hotels, resorts and branded residences across 20 countries, providing luxury hospitality, wellness, travel, and related services worldwide. It was ranked by Travel Luxury Intelligence in 2018 as the world's leading luxury hotel brand.<\/p>\n
The Complainant holds several trademark registrations for “AMAN” going back to 2000 and the Complainant also holds the domain name bearing “AMAN” as <www.aman.com> registered on July 22, 1997.<\/p>\n
On February 13, 2026; the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <amanhotel.site>. The disputed domain name resolves to a web page where it is shown as belonging to AMAN GROUP and includes the content regarding luxury experiences with AMAN brand.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s formerly registered distinctive and well-known trademarks, as it entirely incorporates the Complainant’s “AMAN” trademark with the addition of the descriptive term “hotel”, which would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Moreover, it is claimed that it directly refers to the Complainant’s luxury hospitality business and the consumers will think that it is an official website of the Complainant. The Complainant’s “AMAN” trademark is claimed to remain clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The Complainant refers to previous panel decision in support of its arguments.<\/p>\n
The Complainant refers to earlier decisions and claims that the gTLD “.site” is disregarded, so the domain name remains confusingly similar despite its inclusion.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain name as the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. The Complainant also states that the Respondent is neither affiliated nor authorized by the Complainant in any way and neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark “AMAN”.<\/p>\n
Additionally, it is stated that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that presents itself as being officially associated with Complainant and this website is clearly designed to impersonate Complainant and reproduce its branding without authorization. It reproduces the visual identity, footer structure, destination listings and overall look and feel of Complainant's official website. The Complainant also claims that the Respondent apparently uses the disputed domain name to perpetrate a phishing scheme that cannot constitute legitimate rights and interests pursuant to Policy 4(a)(ii), since the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in a fraudulent scheme to deceive Internet users into providing their personal information. It is argued that through the website, the Respondent seeks to mislead Internet users into believing that the site is affiliated with the Complainant and to induce them to provide personal information. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Complainant claims that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name many years after the first registrations of the Complainant’s “AMAN” trademarks. The Complainant states that “AMAN” is a well-known trademark, and it is claimed that by conducting a simple online search regarding the terms “AMAN HOTEL”, the results are predominantly the Complainant’s business and<\/span> the Respondent either knew or would have inevitably learned about the Complainant, its trademark and business at the time of the registration. Furthermore, the addition of the word \"hotel\", which directly describes the Complainant's core business, seems to confirm that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name with the Complainant specifically in mind.<\/span><\/p>\n Additionally, it was claimed that given the longstanding use and worldwide recognition of the Complainant’s “AMAN” trademark in the luxury hospitality industry, the Respondent could not reasonably have selected the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant's rights. The choice of the disputed domain name <amanhotel.site> itself is asserted to show clear targeting of the Complainant's trademark and business. This is further confirmed by the content and structure of the website, which reproduces the footer, destination listings, similar visual layout, and overall look and feel of the Complainant's official website in a way that can only be the result of deliberate and intentional copying, according to the Complainant, and this presentation is clearly designed to mislead Internet users into believing that the website is affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by the Complainant, which has been found to be in bad faith by various previous panels.<\/p>\n The Complainant further explained that the website also includes a \"SIGN UP\" section inviting users to register their interest in order to receive updates about exclusive experiences and new destinations. Clicking that button leads to a login page and, subsequently, to a full registration form requesting personal information such as full name, e-mail address, phone number, and password. These forms collect sensitive user data under the false impression that the site is an official platform of the Complainant. This conduct is claimed to be going beyond mere confusion; it constitutes an attempt to deceive Internet users and obtain their personal information by impersonating a well-known luxury brand.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the Complainant noted that the disputed domain name has active MX records, which means that the Respondent has the technical capability to send and receive e-mails using addresses under the <amanhotel.site> domain. This was considered particularly concerning given that the website already impersonates the Complainant's official platform. Previous panels have recognized that the configuration of a disputed domain name with MX records represents an ongoing risk of phishing or fraud.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. <\/p>",
"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).<\/p>",
"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).<\/p>",
"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).<\/p>",
"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.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Mrs Selma Ünlü"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-07-29 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the trademarks bearing “AMAN”, inter alia<\/em>, the following:<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the < aman.com> domain name bearing the sign “AMAN” (registered on July 22, 1997).<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"amanhotel.site": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
\n
\n