WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Accor v. Bronn Barnes Case No. D2019-0159 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Accor of Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.

The Respondent is Bronn Barnes of Brighton, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 24, 2019. On January 24, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complain 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 30, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 19, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 20, 2019.

The Center appointed Frank Schoneveld as the sole panelist in this matter on March 4, 2019. 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.

On March 12, 2019, the Center received an informal email communication from the Respondent. 4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the registered owner of:

- European Union trademark for IBIS, No. 001527720, registered on June 6, 2001,
- European Union trademark for IBIS STYLES HOTEL, No. 013239702, registered on January 30, 2015,
- International trademark for IBIS, No. 541432, registered on July 17, 1989, and
- International trademark for IBIS STYLES HOTELS, No. 1097369, registered on September 13, 2011.

The Complainant operates the following domain names reflecting these trademarks:

- registered on June 11, 1993,
- registered on May 30, 2001,
- registered on August 24, 2011, and
- registered on August 24, 2011.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 18, 2018.

The Complainant is a global hotel operator for economic and mid-scale hotels, and provides upscale and luxury hospitality services. The Complainant’s Ibis Styles London Walthamstow Hotel is one of 22 Ibis Styles hotels that the Complainant has in the United Kingdom. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that for more than 45 years it has provided expertise acquired in its core business of hotels and hospitality services and since its establishment in 1967, has acquired considerable reputation and goodwill worldwide. The Complainant says that, under its IBIS brand, it has 1,152 hotels worldwide in 67 countries, and that it is Europe’s leading economy hotel operator. The Complainant says that it has, using design, pop culture, and strong personality, formed a collection of hotels in a unique style, that it markets as “Ibis Styles” - counting more than 400 hotels in 45 countries worldwide, including 22 in the United Kingdom, one of which is the Ibis Styles London Walthamstow Hotel, an economy hotel which offers 191 rooms including 8 rooms for people with reduced mobility.

The Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark IBIS associated with the generic term “styles” while simultaneously reproducing part of its trademark IBIS STYLES HOTELS by omitting the term “hotels” and adding the geographical term “Walthamstow”, and (ii) the disputed domain name redirects to the fake online reservation page “” imitating the Complainant’s Ibis Styles London Walthamstow Hotel website, “/gb/hotel-8063-ibis-styles-london-walthamstow/index.shtml ” – thus impersonating the Complainant. The Complainant says that, in September 2018 the Complainant sent cease-and-desist letters to the holder of the disputed domain name but the Respondent never replied despite several reminders and that, in view of the security threat posed by the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s customers, the Complainant had no other choice than to initiate an UDRP proceeding against the Respondent.

The Complainant submits that (a) it owns and operates several hotels under the trademarks IBIS and IBIS STYLES HOTELS, which are protected worldwide particularly in relation to hotels and restaurant services, and (b) these trademarks are well-known trademarks.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks IBIS and IBIS STYLES HOTELS in that the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark IBIS in its entirety, which previous panels have considered to be very well-known in the field of hotels and in many UDRP decisions, the panels considered that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademarks.

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name reproduces entirely the trademark IBIS with the association of the generic term “styles”, and numerous UDRP decisions have established that adding a generic or descriptive term to the complainant’s trademark does not influence the similarity between a trademark and a domain name. The Complainant also argues that the disputed domain name partly reproduces the trademark IBIS STYLES HOTELS of Complainant by omitting the term “hotels”.

The Complainant notes that the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademarks IBIS and IBIS STYLES with the addition of the geographical term “walthamstow” and theComplainant owns a hotel named “Ibis Styles London Walthamstow Hotel” which heightens the risk of confusion with the disputed domain name since Internet users may believe that it is endorsed by the Complainant. The Complainant argues that many other panels have consistently determined that a domain name which consists of a trademark combined with a geographical term is still confusing and does not provide additional specification or sufficient distinction from the Complainant or its trademarks.

The Complainant contends that the extension “.xyz” in the disputed domain name is a new generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension, and therefore, the new gTLD is not to be taken into consideration when examining the identity or similarity between the Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name, because the mere adjunction of a gTLD such as “.xyz” or “.com” is irrelevant as it is well established that the gTLD is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity.

The Complainant concludes that by registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and it is likely that the disputed domain name could mislead Internet users into thinking that it is, in some way, associated with the Complainant and thus may heighten the risk of confusion.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that registrations of the IBIS and IBIS STYLES HOTELS trademarks preceded the registration of the disputed domain name by a number of years. The Complainant says that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way, and nor has the Respondent been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use or register its trademarks IBIS and IBIS STYLES HOTELS or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the aforesaid trademarks. The Complainant argues that prior panels have found that in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use a widely-known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or the name of “Ibis” and/or “Ibis Styles Hotels” and that there is simply no evidence that the Respondent may be commonly known by the name of “Ibis” and/or “Ibis Styles Hotels”. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent cannot assert that, before any notice of this dispute, the Respondent was using, or had made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant notes that the disputed domain name redirects to the fake online reservation page “ ”, imitating the Complainant’s Ibis Styles London Walthamstow Hotel website, “/gb/hotel-8063-ibis-styles-london-walthamstow/index.shtml” – thus impersonating the Complainant, and such imitation cannot provide the Respondent with rights or legitimate interests over the disputed domain name.

The Complainant submits that, to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the disputed domain name has never been used for any legitimate purpose and in this regard, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s well-known trademark IBIS and so the Respondent cannot reasonably pretend it was intending to develop a legitimate activity through the disputed domain name.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent never answered to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letters and UDRP panels have repeatedly stated that when the respondent does not avail themselves of their rights to respond to the complainant, it can be assumed that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

The Complainant says that, given the Complainant