B&B Hotels v king Yeotan, Zion Prayer International Ministry
WIPO Case No. D2022-4803
•14-02-2023
ARBITRATION
AND
| MEDIATION CENTER |
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
B&B Hotels v. king Yeotan, Zion Prayer International Ministry
Case No. D2022-4803
1. The Parties
The Complainant is B&B Hotels, France, represented by Fiducial Legal By Lamy, France.
The Respondent is king Yeotan, Zion Prayer International Ministry, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <bbhotelbooking.com> (the “Domain Name”) 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 December 14,
2022. On December 15, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 16, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email
to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name
which differed from the named Respondent (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 19,
2022, 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 20, 2022.
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 January 4, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 24, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 26, 2023.
The Center appointed Jeremy Speres as the sole panelist in this matter on January 31, 2023. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and
page 2
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 company that has traded under the B&B HOTELS mark since 1990, offering hotels, restaurants, temporary accommodation and related booking services in numerous European countries and Brazil. The Complainant’s B&B HOTELS mark, as well as variations of the mark have been recognised as being well-known by numerous prior UDRP panels (e.g., B&B Hotels v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, DomainsByProxy.com / Anthony Thomas-Chambers, 1962, WIPO Case No. D2021-2511).
The Complainant owns trade mark registrations for its B&B HOTELS mark, as well as the abovementioned variations, in numerous jurisdictions including:
| - | French trade mark registration No. 3182311, bbhotel (word), in class 43 with registration date February 14, 2003; and |
| - | European Union Trade Mark registration No. 004767323, B&B HOTELS & logo, in class 43 with registration date December 12, 2006. |
The Domain Name was registered on July 20, 2022, and resolves to a website featuring pay-per-click
(“PPC”) advertisements offering hotel bookings that compete with the Complainant.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its well-known B&B HOTELS and variation marks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith given that it has been used for PPC advertisements which compete with the Complainant for the Respondent’s commercial gain.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s registered bbhotel mark is wholly contained within the Domain Name as its first element with only the term “booking” added.
Where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trade mark, the domain name will normally be
considered confusingly similar to that mark (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP
Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) at section 1.7).
The Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
page 3
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant’s unrebutted evidence establishes that its B&B HOTELS mark, and the abovementioned
variations, were registered and known for many years prior to registration of the Domain Name. The Domain
Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks and the Complainant has certified that the Domain
Name is unauthorised by it.
Use of a domain name to host PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalise on the reputation of the complainant’s mark, as in this case (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 2.9). The Respondent has not explained why it chose the Domain Name. Given what is stated below in
relation to bad faith, the likelihood is that the Respondent intended to take advantage of the Complainant’s
trade mark for its own commercial gain, which cannot confer rights or legitimate interests.
There is thus no evidence that any of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy pertain, nor any others which may confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. The Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy by virtue of having made out an unrebutted prima facie case (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 2.1).
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 3.5).
The Domain Name has been used to advertise services relating to and competitive with those of the third party, the Respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for them (
Complainant, which is a clear indicator of targeting for commercial gain under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the
Policy. See Dr. Martens International Trading GmbH, Dr. Maertens Marketing GmbH v. Private Whois
The Panel moreover notes that a Google search for the first and dominant part of the Domain Name (and the targeting of the Complainant (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 3.2.1). Given the composition of the Domain Name, i.e., the combination of the terms “bb” and “hotel” and “booking” the inference is clear that this is the case.
Complainant’s registered mark) – “bbhotel” – reveals results overwhelmingly relating to the Complainant.
| proceeding where an explanation is certainly called for (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 4.3). The | The Panel moreover draws an adverse inference from the Respondent’s failure to take part in the present of the proceeding could not be delivered to the Respondent. In the circumstances of this case, this suggests an attempt by the Respondent to evade pursuit (Kabushiki Kaisha Raibudoa v. Kubota, A, WIPO Case No. D2001-0817). |
| The Complainant has satisfied 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 Domain Name, <bbhotelbooking.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. | |
| /Jeremy Speres/ Jeremy Speres Sole Panelist Date: February 14, 2023 |
0
0
0