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 v. Asad Majeed

Case No. D2021-0687

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Millennium & Copthorne Hotels plc, Millennium & Copthorne International Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Amica Law LLC, Singapore.

The Respondent is Asad Majeed, Pakistan.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <millenniumhotelisb.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 8, 2021. On March 8, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 9, 2021, 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 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 March 29, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 18, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 19, 2021.

The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on April 26, 2021. 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 first Complainant is an international hospitality company which owns hotels operating under the trademark MILLENNIUM. The second Complainant manages the hotels of the first Complainant. Both Complainants own, manage and operate more than 130 hotels all over the world.

The trademark MILLENNIUM is registered in the name of the second Complainant, Millennium & Copthorne International Limited. The second Complainant has registered the trademark MILLENNIUM, for example, under trademark registration No. 4-1997-122430 registered on December 16, 2005 in the Philippines, trademark registration No. 55061 registered on March 14, 2010 in Qatar, trademark registration No. 1105/51 registered on November 8, 2009 in Saudi Arabia and trademark registration No. 2008/29379 registered on
December 17, 2008 in South Africa.

The Complainants also own domain names which contain their trademark MILLENNIUM followed by “hotels”.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 30, 2019. The disputed domain name resolves to website, which offers services competitive to those of the Complainants.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademark MILLENNIUM. The trademark MILLENNIUM is considered well-known and distinctive by prior UDRP Panels and the Complainants’ rights predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. The addition of descriptive or geographical terms such as “isb” and “hotel” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

The Complainants contend that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainants nor authorized to use their trademark MILLENNIUM. The disputed domain name is being used to divert Internet users. The disputed domain name is deceptively similar to the naming convention of a number of the Complainants’ hotels. The letters “isb” are the abbreviation of Islamabad and hence their use as part of the disputed domain name suggests to consumers that the disputed domain name relates to the Complainants’ operations in Islamabad. The use of a domain name to sell products or services of a respondent or competitors of a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no evidence that the Respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name. Social media presence shows that the Respondent is known under the name “Pafsom Arena”.

The Complainants contend that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name is being used to trade off the Complainants’ trademark and its world-wide reputation. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainants’ trademark as it is a well-known and distinctive trademark and has been registered in Pakistan since 2007. The disputed domain name is being used to offer goods or services that are competitive with the services of the Complainants. The Respondent is trying to attract Internet users to its website by creating the likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ trademark.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The second Complainant, Millennium & Copthorne International Limited, is the registered owner of trademark registrations for the trademark MILLENNIUM. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainants, which are part of the same group of companies, have established ownership of the trademark MILLENNIUM.

The disputed domain name comprises the trademark MILLENNIUM in its entirety. The addition of the word “hotel” and the letters “isb” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” should generally be ignored when assessing confusing similarity as established by prior UDRP decisions.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainants and that the Complainants have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainants have made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by asserting that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Claimants nor was authorized to use the trademark MILLENNIUM.

The Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the types specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances, giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainants have met the requirement under the Policy of showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainants have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainants’ trademark is a well-known trademark as established by prior UDRP decisions. It had been registered for more than a decade by the time the disputed domain name was registered. The use of the word “hotel” as well as the use of the disputed domain name to direct to a website that promotes services similar to those of the Complainants confirms the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainants, their business and trademark.

The Panel notes the composition of the disputed domain name, consisting of the trademark MILLENNIUM along with the term “hotel” and abbreviation “isb”. The Panel notes the resemblance between the disputed domain name and the Complainants’ domain names, and that the term “hotel” relates to the Complainants’ business. Additionally, the letters “isb” are an abbreviation of Islamabad. The Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name would create an impression that the disputed domain name is linked to the Complainants and that it relates to their operations in Pakistan. Additionally, the disputed domain name resolves to a website which offers services competing to those of the Complainants. It aims at attracting Internet users for commercial gain by creating the likelihood of confusion. All of the above are indications of bad faith registration and use.

Such conduct falls squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainants have 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 disputed domain name <millenniumhotelisb.com> be transferred to the Complainants.

Nayiri Boghossian
Sole Panelist
Date: April 27, 2021

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/