Westmore · UDRP DecisionLemeridienss.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <lemeridienss.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered LE MERIDIEN mark because it incorporated the mark with the letters “ss,” which were either meaningless or a geographic indicator for She Shan. The Respondent did not rebut the Complainant’s prima facie showing of no rights or legitimate interests. Bad faith was established under paragraph 4(b)(iv) because the domain resolved to a website that claimed to be an official website for the Complainant’s Le Meridien She Shan hotel and attracted users to make bookings through the site.
The timeline behind lemeridienss.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind lemeridienss.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision is a concise example of a domain combining a hotel trademark with an abbreviation linked to a specific property and then using the domain for a purportedly official booking site. The same facts supported confusing similarity, the absence of legitimate interests, and bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv).
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Société des Hotels Méridien v. Xiao Ping Ping Case No. D2014-0733 1. The Parties The Complainant is Société des Hotels Méridien of France, represented by Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, PC, United States of America. The Respondent is Xiao Ping Ping of Beijing, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <lemeridienss.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 5, 2014. On May 6, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 6, 2014, 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 May 15, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 4, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 5, 2014. The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on June 26, 2014. 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 The Complainant is the owner of several hotels under the trademark LE MERIDIEN, including the Le Meridien She Shan in Shanghai, China. The Complainant is the registrant of the trademark LE MERIDIEN in many countries of the world including in China, with the earliest Community trademark registration on February 10, 2000 The disputed domain name <lemeridienss.com> was registered on December 14, 2011. The disputed domain name resolves to a website which encourages bookings and reservations at the Complainant’s Le Meridien She Shan Hotel. The website claims to be an official website for the property. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark LE MERIDIEN. The addition of the generic word “hotel” and geographical indicator “ss”, which is an abbreviation for She Shan, does not detract from this similarity. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It has not been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use the LE MERIDIEN trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has clearly registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondent must have known of the Respondent when registering the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings This is a very simple case of domain name cybersquatting that the UDRP was designed to stop. The Panel accordingly will only make brief findings. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name < lemeridienss.com > is composed of the Complainant’s registered trademark LE MERIDIEN and the letters “ss”. “ss” is either meaningless or a geographic indicator for She Shan. According to previous UDRP decisions, the “addition of merely generic, descriptive, or geographical wording to a trademark in a domain name would normally be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP” (see paragraph 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”)). Therefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. The first element of the UDRP is made out. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests. None of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how a respondent can prove its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case. Since the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests and which the Respondent has not rebutted, the Panel finds that the second element of the UDRP is made out. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. The website under the disputed domain name is being used to attract consumers to make bookings through the website. This case falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which provides that a registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith where: “(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.” The third element of the UDRP is made out. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <lemeridienss.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Douglas Clark Sole Panelist Date: July 10, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around lemeridienss.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.