Belmond Management Limited v silkota vertika

WIPO Case No. D2023-3318

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Belmond Management Limited v. silkota vertika

Case No. D2023-3318

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Belmond Management Limited, United Kingdom, represented by CSC Digital Brand

Services Group AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is silkota vertika, United Kingdom.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <belmondhotelbali.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 2, 2023.
On August 2, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On August 2, 2023, 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
August 3, 2023, 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 4, 2023.

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 8, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5,
the due date for Response was August 28, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 29, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Adam Samuel as the sole panelist in this matter on September 11, 2023. 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 owns and operates hotels in a number of countries. The Complainant owns a number of trademarks for the name BELMOND, including the United States of America trademark number 4832479, registered on October 13, 2015. The Complainant registered the domain names <belmond.com> on

March 5, 1998, and <belmondbali.com> on February 23, 2014, through which it promotes its products and services.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 31, 2023. The disputed domain name resolves to a website indicating that the domain has been suspended pending the verification of the Complainant’s email address.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant owns trademark registrations across various jurisdictions for the name BELMOND. In
creating the disputed domain name, the Respondent has added the generic term “hotel bali” to the
Complainant’s BELMOND trademark. The fact that such terms are closely linked with the Complainant’s
brand and trademark on increases the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the
Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant operates a hotel in Bali.

The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that resolves to an ICANN verification warning which lacks any active content.

The Complainant and its Belmond trademark are known internationally and have been used since 2014, well does not point to a searchable location.
before the registration of the disputed domain name. By registering a domain name that comprises the
Complainant’s BELMOND trademark with the additional term “hotel bali” which directly relates to the
Complainant, the Respondent has shown a knowledge of and familiarity with the Complainant’s brand and
business. The disputed domain name can only be interpreted as intending to cause confusion among

Internet users as to the source of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has ignored the

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:

(i)        the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

page 3

(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.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark, the words “hotel” and “bali”, and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The gTLD is irrelevant here as it is a standard registration requirement. See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

Section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 says:

“Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms
(whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of
confusing similarity under the first element.”

BELMOND is a distinctive made-up word with no independent meaning. “Hotel” and “Bali” describe an activity that the Complainant does in the indicated location.

For all these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the

Complainant’s trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent is not called “belmondhotelbali” or anything similar. There is no evidence that the to have used the disputed domain name for any legitimate purpose.

Based on the available record, where the Complainant has made out a preliminary case that the Respondent
lacks rights or legitimate interests, and in the absence of any response on this point, the Panel concludes
that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. See

section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent appears never to have used the disputed domain.

Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 says:

“From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.”

or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding.

In this case, the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s distinctive trademark and a description of one of its activities: the ownership and operation of a hotel in Bali, Indonesia. The Respondent knew of the Complainant and its business when it registered the disputed domain.

page 4

For all these reasons, the Panel concludes, therefore, that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

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, <belmondhotelbali.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Adam Samuel/
Adam Samuel
Sole Panelist
Date: September 14, 2023