Hotelbnb.cfd

The timeline behind hotelbnb.cfd

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 France v. abdelali ait ouahman Case No. D2026-0376 1. The Parties The Complainant is B&B Hotels France, France, represented by FBL Avocats, France. The Respondent is abdelali ait ouahman, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <hotelbnb.cfd> is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 29, 2026. On January 29, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 30, 2026, 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 (Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 2, 2026, 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 February 5, 2026. 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 February 6, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 26, 2026. The Response was filed with the Center on February 27, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on March 10, 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 was founded on May 28, 1990, in France, rendering services in the hotel, restaurant and short-term accommodation businesses. Presently the Complainant counts with 926 B&B hotels spread through France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Switzerland, Poland, Austria, Slovenia, Czech Republic, and Brazil. The Complainant owns, amongst others, the following trademark registrations (Annex 7 to the Complaint): - European Union trademark registration No. 004767323 for the word and device mark B&B HOTELS, filed on November 29, 2005, registered on December 12, 2006, successively renewed, in class 43; - French trademark registration No. 3394439 for the word and device mark B&B HOTELS, filed on November 29, 2005, registered on May 19, 2006, successively renewed, in class 43; - French trademark registration No. 3182313 for the word mark BB-HOTEL, filed on August 29, 2002, registered on February 14, 2003, successively renewed, in class 43; - French trademark registration No. 3182311 for the word mark BBHOTEL, filed on August 29, 2002, registered on February 14, 2003, successively renewed, in class 43; and - French trademark registration No. 3182312 for the word mark HOTELBB, filed on August 29, 2002, registered on February 14, 2003, successively renewed, in class 43. The disputed domain name was registered on November 27, 2025. Presently, no active webpage resolves from the disputed domain name. The Respondent was also a party in Jay At Play Int’l. Hong Kong Limited d/b/a Jay At Play v. ABDELALI AIT OUAHMAN, WIPO Case No. D2024-3176, relating to the domain names <happynapper.me> and <happynappershop.com>. 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 asserts to have a top position on the French market of budget hotels with a turnover of more than EUR 220 million in 2021, having invested substantially in the development of its services, marketing and advertising of its brand, proactively protecting and marketing the B&B HOTELS trademark on the Internet. The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous trademarks and domain names, and given that the use of the symbol “&” is not possible in a domain name, such ampersand appearing in the Complainant’s trademark is irrelevant in the assessment of the similarity of the signs. page 3 As to the lack of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests, the Complainant argues that: - the disputed domain name is currently inactive; - the Respondent is currently not and has never been known under the name “HOTELBNB” and it is not currently and has never been offering any goods or services under that name (Annex 13 to the Amended Complaint). - the Respondent currently does not own any trademark or any prior right according to searches conducted by the Complainant (Annex 14 to the Amended Complaint); - the Complainant has not licensed or authorized the Respondent in any way to use the trademarks B&B HOTELS, BB-HOTEL, BBHOTEL or HOTELBB; - the Complainant has never allowed the Respondent to register or to use the disputed domain name; and - the Respondent has not adduced any evidence of legitimate use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Lastly, the Complainant considers that the Respondent, who has also been found liable in a past UDRP case, was aware of the existence of the Complainant’s well-known trademarks at the time of registration of the domain name and therefore registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. Furthermore, under the Complainant’s view, the Respondent’s sole intention is to attract, for commercial gain, or to defraud Internet users to third party’s websites or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the websites or locations under 4(b)(iv). In addition to that, the Complainant argues that the non-use of the disputed domain name, associated with the Complainant’s prior rights, clearly establishes that the use of the disputed domain name is being made in bad faith to take advantage of the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied all three of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. According to the Respondent, the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademarks given that “hotel” is descriptive and “bnb” is widely understood online as a generic abbreviation for “bed and breakfast” which is a category of accommodation. Therefore, under the Respondent’s view, treating any “bnb” usage as equivalent to the Complainant’s “B&B” mark would be an overbroad interpretation that would improperly expand the trademark scope into descriptive/generic language. The Respondent further states that the disputed domain name was registered for its descriptive meaning and for a bona fide future use, there having been no impersonation, no use of the Complainant’s logos or trade dress, no claim of affiliation, and no misleading diversion. Lastly, the Respondent points out that there is no evidence of any offer to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant, no proven abusive pattern in this case, no disruption of a competitor, and no intentional attraction for commercial gain by confusion. The Respondent further asserts that the Complainant relies on “passive holding”, but passive holding is not automatic bad faith and, in this case, the disputed domain name is descriptive, there being a plausible good-faith use and no evidence of targeting, impersonation, redirection, phishing, or trademark-targeted pay-per-click (“PPC”) links. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth three requirements, which have to be met for this Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and page 4 (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is present in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel is not persuaded by the Respondent’s contention that the selection of the terms “bnb” and “hotel” was made solely for their alleged generic or descriptive value. While “bnb” may in some contexts be understood as shorthand for “bed and breakfast”, the Panel notes that bed-and-breakfast accommodations are not ordinarily equivalent to hotels. By contrast, the record indicates that the Complainant has extensively used its “B&B” mark in connection with hotel services, particularly in Europe. In these circumstances, the Panel does not consider the Respondent’s explanation, without more, to be persuasive. Although the Respondent states that the disputed domain name was registered for its descriptive meaning and bona fide future use, the Respondent has not produced a single piece of evidence of demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in that descriptive sense. There is no concrete project, no draft site, no business documentation, no pre-dispute branding materials, and no contemporaneous explanation beyond assertion. Under UDRP practice, once the Complainant makes a prima facie showing, the Respondent must come forward with evidence, not just mere assertions. page 5 The Panel further notes that, in a prior UDRP case involving this same Respondent, a similar unsupported defense based on alleged generic meaning was not accepted. While each case must be decided on its own facts, the Panel considers that prior decision to reinforce the need for persuasive evidence in support of the Respondent’s present assertions, which is lacking here. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The Panel has considered the Respondent’s submission that there is no evidence of any of the specific circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, including no offer to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant, no proven abusive pattern in this case, no disruption of a competitor, and no intentional attraction of Internet users for commercial gain by confusion. The Panel has also considered the Respondent’s contention that the disputed domain name has not been used for impersonation, redirection, phishing, or trademark-targeted PPC links, and that the present case rests only on passive holding. The absence of evidence falling squarely within one of the circumstances enumerated in paragraph 4(b), however, is not dispositive. Those circumstances are illustrative, not exhaustive. The question remains whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the Respondent more likely than not registered and has held the disputed domain name to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s trademark. In the present case, the Panel is not persuaded by the Respondent’s explanation that the disputed domain name was selected solely for its alleged descriptive meaning. As noted above, while “bnb” may in some contexts be understood as shorthand for “bed and breakfast”, the combination of “hotel” and “bnb” in the disputed domain name does not, on this record, strike the Panel as a naturally compelling descriptive choice independent of the Complainant. This is particularly so where the Complainant has used the B&B HOTELS mark in connection with hotel services, particularly in Europe. In these circumstances, the disputed domain name appears apt to evoke the Complainant and its field of activity rather than some genuinely descriptive or generic concept chosen at random. The Panel further notes that the Respondent has offered no persuasive evidence of any contemplated bona fide use. Apart from the bare assertion of a future descriptive project, the record contains no documentary support for any bona fide plan, such as a business proposal, branding materials, website drafts, or other contemporaneous preparations. The lack of such evidence significantly undermines the Respondent’s claimed good-faith rationale for registration. The Panel accepts that passive holding is not automatically equivalent to bad faith. At the same time, panels have found that the non-use of a domain name, including a blank or inactive page, does not prevent a finding of bad faith where the surrounding circumstances support such an inference. Relevant considerations may include the distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, the composition of the disputed domain name, the plausibility of any good-faith use, and the Respondent’s failure to provide a credible explanation for its conduct. WIPO Overview 3.1 section 3.3. Applying those considerations here, the Panel finds that the circumstances support an inference of targeting. The disputed domain name combines a term corresponding to the Complainant’s trademark with a term directly related to the Complainant’s sector. The Respondent’s explanation is unsupported and unpersuasive. On the available record, the Panel sees no credible good-faith reason why the Respondent selected this particular combination other than because of its association with the Complainant. page 6 The Panel also notes that, in a prior UDRP proceeding involving the same Respondent, the panel rejected a similar unsupported defense based on alleged generic meaning and found that the Respondent had registered and used the disputed domain names to take advantage of the Complainant’s trademark significance. While the Panel does not treat that prior decision as determinative of the present dispute, it does reinforce the need for persuasive evidence where the same Respondent again advances an unsubstantiated descriptive-use explanation. No such persuasive evidence has been provided here. In all of the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent more likely than not knew, or at least should have known, of the Complainant’s mark when registering the disputed domain name, and that the subsequent passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <hotelbnb.cfd> be transferred to the Complainant. /Wilson Pinheiro Jabur/ Wilson Pinheiro Jabur Sole Panelist Date: March 24, 2026

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