WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Accor v. Mark Mandall, Hardcoresales Pty Ltd Case No. DAU2019-0004 1. The Parties

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

Respondent is Mark Mandall, Hardcoresales Pty Ltd, of Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC. 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 15, 2019. On March 15, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to GoD, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 15, 2019, GoD, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .au Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “.auDRP”), the Rules for .au Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .au Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 19, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 8, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 9, 2019.

The Center appointed Leon Trakman as the sole panelist in this matter on April 16, 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. 4. Factual Background

Complainant enjoys a worldwide reputation. Complainant owns GRAND MERCURE and MERCURE trademark registrations around the world, including: Australian Trademark MERCURE No. 612263, dated September 23, 1993, duly renewed, covering services in class 42, International trademark GRAND MERCURE No. 900839, dated of September 29, 2006 (since renewed) covering services in class 43 covering, inter alia, Australia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Norway, and Turkey.

Complainant also operates domain names including: registered on October 25, 2004, and, registered on April 6, 1996.

On the evidence presented, Respondent does not own, or have a legal right or interest in, trademarks or domain names using the words “grand mercure”, or the word “mercure”, other than as may be inferred from its registration and use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered on February 2, 2018, and resolved to a website with the title “Docklands Apartment Grand Mercure”, offering apartment services and tips. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

Complainant contends, firstly, that the disputed domain name is very similar to Complainant’s trademarks MERCURE and GRAND MERCURE and that it reproduces Complainant’s trademark in its entirety.

Secondly, Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and that its registration and use of that name violates Complainant’s GRAND MERCURE and MERCURE trademark, which precedes by some years Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name.

Thirdly, Complainant contends that it is implausible to hold that Respondent was unaware of Complainant’s trademark and services when it registered the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent demonstrated bad faith in that it “knew or should have known” of Complainant’s trademark rights and, nevertheless registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith in which it had no right or legitimate interest. B. Respondent

Respondent did not respond to the Complaint. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar, and indeed, identical in significant respects to Complainant’s trademarks MERCURE and GRAND MERCURE.

Prior UDRP Panels have held that a Respondent who incorporates a Complainant’s widely known trademark in its entirety is adequate to establish that Respondent has adopted a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a Complainant’s registered trademark. The Panel notes that the Policy is substantially similar to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the Panel has referred to prior UDRP cases where appropriate. See Accor v. Domainjet, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2012-0038, Accor v. Huajicani Hujiancai,WIPO Case No. D2014-0189, Accor v. Reap Usd,