Westmore · UDRP DecisionAccorhotels-beinvenue.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <accorhotels-beinvenue.com> to Accor. It found the domain confusingly similar to Accor’s ACCORHOTELS and other ACCOR marks, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that registration and use were in bad faith. The Panel relied particularly on the incorporation of the marks, the misspelling of the French word “bienvenue,” initial hotel-related pay-per-click use, the Respondent’s awareness of Accor, and use intended to attract Internet users through confusion. The domain’s subsequent passive holding did not prevent a finding of bad faith.
The timeline behind accorhotels-beinvenue.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 accorhotels-beinvenue.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates how a domain combining a distinctive hotel mark with a misspelled dictionary term can establish targeting when reinforced by a closely corresponding complainant-owned domain and hotel-related pay-per-click use. It also confirms that later inactivity does not erase evidence of earlier targeted commercial use or otherwise prevent a bad-faith finding.
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. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico Case No. D2019-1861 1. The Parties The Complainant is Accor, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France. The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <accorhotels-beinvenue.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 August 2, 2019. On August 2, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 7, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 8, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 13, 2019. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 August 15, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 4, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 6, 2019. The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on September 16, 2019. 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 a leading global hotel operator providing hospitality services. The Complainant operates more than 4,800 hotels worldwide in 100 countries. The Complainant’s hotels include such notable chains as Fairmont, Raffles, Swissôtel, Sofitel, Pullman, Novotel, Grand Mercure, and Ibis. The Complainant operates 56 hotels in the United States of America. The Complainant’s main website is “www.accorhotels.com”. The Complainant has been in the hotel business for more than 45 years. The Complainant is the owner of numerous international trademarks (collectively referred to herein as the “Marks”): - International trademark ACCOR HOTELS, No. 1280325, registered on September 15, 2016, designating, inter alia , the United States of America, China, Russian Federation, covering goods and services in classes 35, 36, 39 and 43; - International trademark LE CLUB ACCOR HOTELS, No. 1103852, registered on November 17, 2011, designating, inter alia , the United States of America, covering goods and services in classes 09, 35 and 36; - International trademark ACCORHOTELS.COM, No. 1101456, registered on November 17, 2011, designating, inter alia , the United States of America, China and Russian Federation, covering goods and services in classes 35, 39 and 43; - International trademark ACCORHOTELS, No. 1103847, registered on December 12, 2011, designating, inter alia , the United States of America, China and Russian Federation, covering goods and services in classes 35, 39 and 43; - International trademark ACCOR No. 727696, registered on December 28, 1999, duly renewed, designating , inter alia , China, Russian Federation and Viet Nam, covering goods and services in classes 16, 39, 42; - International trademark ACCOR No. 742032, registered on August 25, 2000, duly renewed, designating, inter alia, China, Egypt, Germany, Italy, and Russian Federation, covering services in class 38; - International trademark ACCOR No. 1128307, registered on February 20, 2012, designating, inter alia , China, Egypt and Russian Federation, covering services in classes 35 and 43. The Complainant owns and operates the following domain names: - <accor.com> registered on February 23, 1998; - <accorhotels.com> registered on April 30, 1998; - <accorhotels-bienvenue.com> registered on October 23, 2017. The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on June 29, 2018 and renewed on June 18, 2019. The disputed domain name initially resolved to a parking website featuring hotel-related pay-per-click links. The website thereafter resolved to a website displaying a link, which redirected to a website offering rocket foreign language courses. According to the Complaint and Annexes, the disputed domain name now resolves to an inactive website. On September 6, 2018, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent requesting that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. The Respondent never answered the Complainant’s letter. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCOR HOTELS mark because the disputed domain name merely adds the expression “beinvenue” to the Complainant’s mark ACCOR HOTELS. Additionally, the disputed domain name is similar to Complainant’s Marks, collectively, because the disputed domain name incorporates the ACCOR mark in its entirety followed by dictionary terms. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as the Respondent is not known by the Marks or the disputed domain name prior to the registration and use of the disputed domain name. Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to attract for commercial gain unsuspecting Internet customers to the Respondent’s website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Marks. The disputed domain name is composed by the mere addition of the expression “beinvenue” to the Complainant’s ACCORHOTELS mark. The addition of a dictionary term (in this case a misspelling of the French word “bienvenue”) to a complainant’s mark is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. mei xudong , WIPO Case No. D2013-0150 . Additionally, the use of the required Top-Level Domain (“TLD”), in this case “.com”, is immaterial to the analysis of confusing similarity, L’Oréal v Tina Smith , WIPO Case No. D2013-0820 . Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCORHOTELS mark. Additionally, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to each the Complainant’s Marks because the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s mark ACCOR followed by the dictionary terms “hotels” and “beinvenue” (a misspelling of “bienvenue”). The Complainant has met its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or the Complainant’s Marks. There is no evidence that the Respondent, in any manner, conducted business under the Marks prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has specifically disavowed providing the Respondent with any license, permission, or authority to use the disputed domain name or the Marks. The Respond has not come forth with evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or the Marks. The Complainant has met its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It is not conceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant’s well-known Marks, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows , WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 . The disputed domain name initially resolved to a website featuring hotel-related pay-per-click links. A simple Internet check would have disclosed the Complainant’s business and Marks to the Respondent. In any event, no such check by the Respondent was necessary as the Panel has determined that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s Marks and specifically chose the Complainant’s mark ACCORHOTELS when composing the disputed domain name. Additionally, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to lure unsuspecting Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Marks, MasterCard International Incorporated (“MasterCard”) v. Wavepass AS , WIPO Case No. D2012-1765 ; Edmunds.com, Inc v. Triple E Holdings Limited , WIPO Case No. D2006-1095 . Moreover, and in accordance with section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the “WIPO Overview 3.0”), the current passive use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. The Complainant has met its burden of proof under 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, <accorhotels-beinvenue.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. William F. Hamilton Sole Panelist Date: September 20, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around accorhotels-beinvenue.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.