Westmore · UDRP DecisionAccorhofels.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <accorhofels.com> after finding it confusingly similar to Accor’s ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS marks, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the domain was registered and used in bad faith. The Panel characterized the substitution of “f” for “t” in ACCORHOTELS as targeted typosquatting and held that the domain’s inactivity did not prevent a finding of bad faith.
The timeline behind accorhofels.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 accorhofels.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates how a single-letter substitution in a widely recognized mark can support both confusing similarity and a finding of targeted typosquatting. It also shows that an inactive domain may still satisfy the bad-faith element where the domain itself targets established marks and the surrounding circumstances include apparent misuse of identity information.
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 Accor v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1241894643 / Name Redacted Case No. D2018-1318 1. The Parties The Complainant is Accor of Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France. The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1241894643 of Toronto, Canada / Name Redacted. 1 Of Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <accorhofels.com> is registered with Google Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 13, 2018. On June 13, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 14, 2018, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 22, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 12, 2018. On July 12, 2018, the Center received an email from a third party indicating that it is not related to the Respondent and its name and address have been used to register the disputed domain name without its permission. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 14, 2018. The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on July 30, 2018. 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 operates widely known hotel chains with more than 3,800 hotels in 92 countries. The Complainant is the owner of the internationaly recognized ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS trademarks registered in a large number of jurisdictions since many years ( cf . Annex 5 to the Complaint). The Complainant also owns and operates various domain names comprising its ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS trademarks, such as <accor.com> and <accorhotels.com>, both registered already in 1998. The Respondent is composed of a domain name privacy registration service and an individual, whose name is redacted as a third party may probably have used the named Respondent’s identity for registering the disputed domain name without her or his consent. For the purpose of this Decision, both of them are nevertheless jointly accepted and referred to as “the Respondent”. The disputed domain name was registered on November 5, 2017. According to information provided in the case file, the Respondent did not reply to a letter previously sent by the Complainant asking for a voluntary transfer of the disputed domain name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS trademarks. Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It is rather argued that the Respondent intentionally tries to imitate the Complainant’s trademarks. Finally, it is argued that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant particularly argues that the Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant’s ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS trademarks, when registering the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complaint’s contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd. , WIPO Case No. D2007-1228 . However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the WIPO Overview 3.0 . A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS trademarks of the Complainant. First, the Panel confirms that the Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of having relevant trademark rights. As evidenced in the Complaint ( cf . Annex 5 to the Complaint), the Complainant and its affiliates are the owner of a large number of ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS trademarks, which enjoy a widespread reputation. The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS trademarks. The change of the letter “t” into letter “f” in the disputed domain name is an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s ACCORHOTELS trademark, which does not create a new distinctiveness of the disputed domain name in relation to the Complainant’s registered trademarks. In view of the above, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has met the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel further finds that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. While the burden of proof remains with the complainant, panels have recognized that this would often result in the impossible task of proving a negative, in particular as the evidence needed is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore, the Panel agrees with prior UDRP panels that the complainant is required to make out a prima facie case before the burden of production of evidence shifts to the respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to meet the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd. , WIPO Case No. D2003-0455 . The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this requirement, while the Respondent has failed to file any evidence or make any convincing argument to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name according to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii) and 4(c). In its Complaint, the Complainant has provided uncontested prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to use the Complainant’s trademarks ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS in a confusingly similar way within the disputed domain name. In the absence of a Response by the Respondent, there is no indication in the current record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent has failed to demonstrate one of the other non-exclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, paragraph 4(c) or other evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In particular, the Respondent has failed to show that the disputed domain name has been or is intended to be used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel is further convinced that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent intentionally attempted to create a likelihood of confusion among customers and/or to otherwise take advantage of the Complainant’s trademark for illegitimate purposes. The Panel is convinced that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS trademarks when it registered the disputed domain name in November 2017. At the date of registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS trademarks were already registered and widely recognized. The Panel further believes that the Respondent has chosen an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademarks as a domain name in order to intentionally attract and mislead Internet users in their believing that the disputed domain name is somehow affiliated with the Complainant. In the Panel’s view, the Respondent is trying to misrepresent itself as the trademark owner without being entitled to do so. Targeted typosquatting of this nature is in the Panel’s view compelling evidence of bad faith. The potential identity theft in this case is in view of the Panel another indication for bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. The fact that the disputed domain name is currently inactive does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use. All in all, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainant consequently has satisfied the third element of the Policy, namely, paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 <accorhofels.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Kaya Köklü Sole Panelist Date: August 3, 2018 1 As detailed in Section 4 of this decision, the record indicates a third party may have used the named Respondent’s name in registering the disputed Domain Name without the named Respondent’s consent. The Panel has accordingly decided to redact the Respondent’s name from the caption and body of this decision. However, the Panel has included in Annex 1 to this decision an instruction to the Registrar which includes the Respondent’s name. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar, and has indicated that Annex 1 is not to be published given the circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted , WIPO Case No. D2009-1788 .
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around accorhofels.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.