B&B Hotels v Jimmy Harrison

WIPO Case No. D2025-0853

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

B&B Hotels v. Jimmy Harrison

Case No. D2025-0853

1. The Parties

The Complainant is B&B Hotels, France, represented by Fiducial Legal By Lamy, France.

The Respondent is Jimmy Harrison, Nigeria.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <hoteibb.com> is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Discount-Domain.com and Onamae.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 28,
2025. On March 3, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification
in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 4, 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 (Whois Privacy Protection Service by onamae.com) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 4,
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

March 7, 2025.

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 March 10, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was March 30, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 31, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on April 2, 2025. 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 French hotel chain founded in 1990 with more than 850 hotels in 17 countries.

The Complainant owns trademark registrations in various jurisdictions, including the French trademark
HOTELBB (Reg. No. 3182312, filed on August 29, 2002 with an expiry date of August 29, 2032).

The disputed domain name was registered on December 14, 2024. The website associated with the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page, which states, “[t]his is a default webpage generated for hoteibb.com by Plesk”.

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.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has not submitted any reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

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 Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

A domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark for the purposes of the Policy when the which is considered as a misspelling of a trademark (i.e., “typosquatting”). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.

domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of other terms in the
domain name (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662).

The Panel finds that 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.

page 3

Although 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 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 3.0, 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 Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel also notes that the disputed domain name is a misspelling of the Complainant’s HOTELBB trademark by replacing the letter “l” with the letter “i” and that there is a risk that Internet users will not notice the subtle misspelling. In the present case, the Panel therefore finds that the composition of the disputed domain name creates a risk of implied affiliation.

The Panel finds that 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 disputed domain name constitutes a misspelling of the Complainant’s prior registered HOTELBB trademark by replacing the letter “l” with the letter “i.” The difference between the two is rather subtle. Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, it is more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of

the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name and was engaged in an attempt to
mislead Internet users into believing that the disputed domain name may be associated with the
Complainant.

The disputed domain name presently points to a parking page generated by Plesk with no apparently active and substantive use. Considering the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name and the lack of the Response from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the current non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes 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 <hoteibb.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Tobias Zuberbühler/
Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: April 8, 2025