About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Millennium & Copthorne Hotels PLC, Millennium & Copthorne International Limited (MCIL) v. Sanjay Makkar and Millennium Hotel

Case No. D2015-0210

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Millennium & Copthorne Hotels PLC of Surrey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Millennium & Copthorne International Limited (MCIL) of Singapore, represented by Amica Law LLC, Singapore (collectively, the "Complainant").

The Respondents are Sanjay Makkar of Faridabad, Haryana, India and Millennium Hotel of Faridabad, India (collectively, the "Respondent").

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <millenniumhotelindia.com> is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-Channel.com (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 10, 2015. On February 10, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 11, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent Sanjay Makkar is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on February 18, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 10, 2015. On February 20, 2015, the Center received an email communication from the Respondent. The Respondent did not however submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the parties about the commencement of panel appointment process on March 11, 2015.

The Center appointed Christopher J. Pibus as the sole panelist in this matter on March 20, 2015. 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 the owner and operator of hotels and resorts throughout the world. The Complainant has operated under the name "Millennium & Copthorne Hotels PLC" and "Millennium & Copthorne International Limited" and has since 1995 owned and used the MILLENNIUM trademark for its hotel properties. At the time the Complaint was filed, the Complainant owns and operates 46 MILLENNIUM branded hotels around the world, including the following:

Millennium and Copthorne Hotels at Chelsea Football Club

Millennium Gloucester Hotel London Kennsington

Millennium Hotel London Knightsbridge

Millennium Hotel Glasgow

Millennium Hotel Paris Charles de Gaulle

Millennium Hotel Paris Opera

Grand Millennium Beijing

Millennium Residences Beijing Fortune Plaza

Millennium Hotel Fuqing

Millennium Hotel Wuxi

Millennium Resort Patong Phuket

Millennium Corniche Hotel Abu Dhabi

Millennium Airport Hotel Dubai

Millennium Hotel Doha

Millennium Kurdistan Hotel and Spa

Millennium Bitmore Hotel Los Angeles

Millennium Broadway Hotel New York

Millennium Bostonian Hotel Boston

Millennium Harvest House Boulder

Millennium Hotel and Resort Manuels Taupo

Millennium Hotel Queenstown

The Complainant's hotels and services have been recognized by the industry and has been awarded the "Best 5-Star Business / Corporate Hotel (Gold)" in 2013 MENA Travel Awards, the "Best Business Hotel 2013" by Emigrate to Shanghai magazine, the "Best Business Hotel 2012" by Voyage Magazine, and "Gold SABRE Award – Travel and Tourism Category" at the eighth annual EMEA SABRE Award by Holmes Group in 2012.

The Complainant owns and operates websites in association with the domain names <millenniumhotels.com>; <millenniumhotels.net>; and <millenniumhotels.org>. Over 37,000 Internet users accessed the Complainant's website per day in 2013, and over 17,000 transactions were completed each month, generating revenue in excess of USD 100 million in 2013. The Complainant spent over USD 18.2 million in advertising and promotion of its MILLENNIUM brand and hotels in 2013.

The Complainant owns many trademark registrations around the world for MILLENNIUM, including the following:

India, Registration No. 1248342

European Union, Community Trade Mark Registration No. 310623

Australia, Registration No. 674552

Bahrain, Registration No. 72950

Canada, Registration No. TMA 754,928

People's Republic of China, Registration No. 1085964

Egypt, Registration No. 233567

France, Registration No. 95586520

Hong Kong, China, Trademark Registration No. 199706976

Kuwait, Registration No. 93902

Pakistan, Registration No 259299

Russian Federation, Registration No. 419657

Taiwan, Province of China, Registration No. 090897

The disputed domain name was registered on July 4, 2007.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant submits that it owns many trademark registrations for the trademark MILLENNIUM around the world, including those listed in paragraph 4 above.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <millenniumhotelindia.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark MILLENNIUM. The addition of the terms "hotel" and "India" does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's MILLENNIUM trademark. In fact, the descriptive term "hotel" and geographical term "India" add to the confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark.

Rights and Legitimate Interests

The Complainant contends that the Respondent was never authorized or licensed to use the Complainant's MILLENNIUM trademark. The Complainant submits that the use of a confusingly similar trademark in association with a website that provides identical and competing services does not demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's MILLENNIUM trademark. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name to interfere with the Complainant's business and is attempting to trade on the goodwill of the Complainant's reputation. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name in association with a website that provides identical and competing services. The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant's cease and desist letter.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions, other than to send an email to the Center on February 20, 2015. This email contained a statement that the Respondent has "no concern with" the Complainant. The email also stated that "our name is registered in India by the government of India" and the disputed domain name is also registered.

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements:

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

(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 Panel finds that the Complainant owns registered trademark rights in the MILLENNIUM trademark by virtue of the trademark registrations listed in paragraph 4 above.

The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name <millenniumhotelindia.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark MILLENNIUM. The disputed domain name contains as a first and dominant element the Complainant's trademark MILLENNIUM, combined with the descriptive term "hotel" and the geographical term "India". The addition of these terms does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name, rather it suggests the type of services provided and the location of those services.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds, on the evidence filed, that the Complainant's trademark has a substantial reputation worldwide, and as such the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's trademark rights in the MILLENNIUM trademark. The Respondent was never authorized or licensed to use the Complainant's trademark. The disputed domain name reverts to a website that provides identical and competing services to those of the Complainant. The absence of a substantive response by the Respondent when it might have explained the history of its business, its choice of name and its knowledge or ignorance of the Complainant's rights, is particularly problematic for the Panel. The cryptic email comments from the Respondent to the effect that it has "no concern" with the Complainant are unsatisfactory and cannot be viewed as probative evidence in connection with any of the relevant issues. Accordingly, on the basis of the record in this proceeding, the Panel concludes that the Respondent does not hold any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel concludes that due to the worldwide reputation of the MILLENNIUM trademark and related services, the Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant's trademark when it registered and used the disputed domain name in association with a website which provides identical and competing services. As noted above in paragraph 6. B, that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under 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 disputed domain name <millenniumhotelindia.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Christopher J. Pibus
Sole Panelist
Date: March 25, 2015

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/