Bnb-hotel.com

The timeline behind bnb-hotel.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION B&B Hotels v. Marco Galli, Bazillion Srl SB Case No. D2025-5222 1. The Parties The Complainant is B&B Hotels, France, represented by FBL Avocats, France. The Respondent is Marco Galli, Bazillion Srl SB, Italy. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <bnb-hotel.com> is registered with Register SPA (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 15, 2025. On December 15, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 16, 2025, 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 December 16, 2025, 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 December 29, 2025. On December 19, 2025, the Center informed the parties in Italian and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Italian. On December 22, 2025, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. On January 22, 2026, the Respondent objected to the Complainant’s request. 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 in both English and Italian, and the proceedings commenced on January 5, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 25, 2025. The Respondent sent email page 2 communications to the Center on January 22, 2026, January 29, 2026, and February 4, 2026 (see below, section 5.B). On February 7, 2026, the Respondent filed a belated Response. The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on February 3, 2026. 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 a portfolio of budget or value hotels. It was incorporated in France in 1990 and, according to the Complainant, has been using its brand “B&B Hotels” for hotels since then. The Complainant is headquartered in France and provided evidence that there are some 860 hotels operating under its brand. This includes some 432 hotels in France, 211 hotels in Germany, and 77 hotels in Italy. Most of the remaining hotels are in European countries but seven are in Brazil and two in the United States of America. In France alone, the Complainant’s hotels generated revenues of EUR 220 million in 2021. The Complainant holds several domain names, including <bb-hotels.fr> which was registered on October 30, 2009 and <b-and-b-hotel.com> which was registered on January 10, 2024. The Complainant owns a number of registered trademarks including: (1) French Registered Trademark No. 023182311, BBHOTEL, which was registered on February 14, 2003, with effect from August 29, 2002, in respect of relevant hotel and accommodation services in International Class 43; (2) French Registered Trademark No. 023182312, HOTELBB, which was registered on February 14, 2003,with effect from August 29, 2002, in respect of relevant hotel and accommodation services in International Class 43; (3) French Registered Trademark No. 023182313, BB-HOTEL, which was registered on February 14, 2003, with effect from August 29, 2002, in respect of relevant hotel and accommodation services in International Class 43; (4) European Union Trade Mark No. 004767323, B&B HOTELS (figurative), which was registered on December 12, 2006, in respect of hotels, restaurants, cafeterias, bars, reservation of hotels and temporary accommodation services in International Class 43; The figurative version of the trademark is for the following sign: The disputed domain name was registered on February 25, 2025. The Parties were involved in a previous UDRP case filed on February 11, 2025, and decided on March 28, 2025, regarding the domain names <hotel-bnb.com> and <wiki-hotel-bnb.com> in which the transfer of these domain names was ordered. See B&B Hotels v. Marco Galli, Marco Galli, WIPO Case No. D2025-0548. page 3 Currently, the disputed domain name does resolves to a parking page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends as follows: The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights, considering that it is not possible to register the symbol “&” in a domain name. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its trademarks, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use, or demonstrable preparation to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith because it is obvious that the Respondent had knowledge of both the Complainant and its well-known trademarks at the time it registered the disputed domain name. The non-use of the disputed domain name which is similar to the Complainant’s trademarks shows that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith to take advantage of the Complainant. B. Respondent On January 22, 2026, the Respondent sent an email to the Center requesting in essence that the language of the proceedings be Italian because he allegedly does not have sufficient knowledge of the English language. On January 29, 2026, he sent further email communications to the Center asking whether it will still be possible to file a Response and noting that he received the documents in English although he had requested the use of the Italian language. On February 4, 2026, the Respondent asked whether he could submit the Response to the Center’s email address. On the same date, the Center responded that as the specified due date for submission of a Response had passed, and the Rules make no express provision for the filing of materials by either party at that stage of the proceedings except as may be specifically requested by the Panel, and that if/when the Respondent would file a late Response it would be at the discretion of the Panel to consider it. On February 7, 2026, the Respondent filed a belated Response. The Respondent stated in the late Response: Disputed domain name is composed only of generic, descriptive tourism terms (“bnb” as a common abbreviation for bed and breakfast, and “hotel”), does not reproduce the Complainant’s trademark or distinctive elements. It has a legitimate interest in the disputed domain because it is a registered innovative startup and the domain was registered for a real, structured business project: a developing digital platform for promotion, intermediation, and sale of tourist services (including hotels, B&Bs, and other accommodations). page 4 The platform exists in prototype/testing form, a patent application has been filed, and the company has been admitted to an acceleration program. The disputed domain was chosen for its descriptive value, not to target third-party marks. The domain was not registered or used in bad faith. Any lack of active commercial use is due to the prototyping phase, and the project is documented in a business plan used for bank financing in September 2024. The Respondent also notes that the Complainant objected to earlier <hotel-bnb.com> domain name and only later registered multiple domain names incorporating “bnbhotel”, which, together with the descriptive nature of the terms, is said to be inconsistent with allegations of speculative intent. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of a disputed domain name, the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (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 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. 6.1 Procedural issues A. Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Italian. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint, however, was filed in English and the Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including the fact that it is a French company which would be prejudiced by being required to arrange translations into Italian, the Registrar’s website is in English, and the same parties were involved in a previous UDRP case where the proceedings had been conducted in English. See B&B Hotels v. Marco Galli, Marco Galli, WIPO Case No. D2025-0548. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1). In the case no. B&B Hotels v. Marco Galli, Marco Galli, WIPO Case No. D2025-0548 quoted above, the previous Panel noted that the Respondent had submitted his Response “perfectly clearly and comprehensibly” in English. Therefore, this Panel infers that the Respondent has sufficient knowledge of the English language for the purpose of these proceedings. page 5 Accordingly, this Panel exercises the discretion under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules to conduct these proceeding in English as well. Nevertheless, for the sake of procedural efficiency and in order to give the Respondent a fair opportunity to present its case, the Panel will consider the Respondent’s Italian submissions, without requiring translation. B. Late response The Respondent filed a Response in Italian on February 7, 2026. At that point in time, the due date for submission of a Response had already passed. The deadline to file the Response had been set by the Center in the formal notification of the Complaint which had been sent to the Respondent in both English and Italian on January 5, 2026. The Respondent, therefore, could and should have filed his Response (in English or in Italian) within that deadline. Nevertheless, noting the Respondent’s initial (timely) procedural queries and in order to give the Respondent a fair opportunity to present its case, the Panel will exceptionally consider the Respondent’s late Response. Therefore, the Panel decides in his discretion that the late Response shall be admissible in the present case. 6.2 Substantive issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights. It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Complainant has proven ownership of the registered trademarks identified in section 4 above. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) is a functional aspect of the domain name system and may thus be disregarded. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11. It is also usual to disregard any design elements of a trademark under the first element as such elements are generally incapable of representation in a domain name. Where the textual elements have been disclaimed in the registration or cannot fairly be described as an essential or important element of the trademark, however, different considerations may arise. See for example, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.10. Disregarding the “.com” gTLD, the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s French Registered Trademark No. 023182313, BB-HOTEL with the letter “n” interposed between the “b”s and is thus confusingly similar to this trademark. It is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s European Union Trade Mark No. 004767323, B&B HOTELS (figurative) given the “n” will be understood as the sign “&”, which is not available in domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and the requirement under the first limb of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The second requirement the Complainant must prove is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three examples of circumstances which can be situations in which the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. These are illustrative only and are page 6 not an exhaustive listing of the situations in which a respondent can show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing. The Complaint contends that it has strong international brand recognition and operates numerous hotels in Italy, where the Respondent is located. The Respondent claims to operate in the same sector (i.e. travel accommodations) as the Complainant, and has not disclaimed knowledge of the Complainant or its trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name. In fact, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant as the disputed domain name was registered during a prior UDRP proceeding between the Parties. Moreover, the Panel notes that the Respondent’s submissions are inconsistent (referring in various documents to “bnb-hotel”, “hotel-bnb”, and “wikihotel-bnb”). Lastly, the Panel notes that while there may be some descriptive aspects to “bnb” or “hotel” separately, the combination does not appear to be commonly used in normal discourse, and the disputed domain name does appear likely to suggest a connection with the Complainant’s extensively-used trademarks. In these circumstances, the Panel is unable to find that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in good faith, and finds that the Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing. Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has established the second requirement under the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under the third requirement of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name has been both registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. The Panel notes that on February 25, 2025, when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, the above-mentioned previous B&B Hotels v. Marco Galli, Marco Galli, WIPO Case No. D2025-0548 between the same Parties regarding <hotel-bnb.com> and <wiki-hotel-bnb.com> was already pending. In the present case, the disputed domain name consists of the same elements in inverted order as one of the domain names at issue in that prior dispute (<bnb-hotel.com> instead of <hotel-bnb.com>). It is therefore evident that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademarks, and that he decided to register the disputed domain name while that prior dispute was still pending, which shows the Respondent’s intent to target the Complainant and its trademarks. Under these circumstances, the registration of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy and its subsequent use would also constitute use in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Complainant has established all three requirements under the Policy. page 7 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 <bnb-hotel.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Andrea Mondini/ Andrea Mondini Sole Panelist Date: February 17, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.