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

VUR Village Trading No. 1 Limited t/a Village Hotels v. Rivero Merlot

Case No. D2021-1817

1. The Parties

The Complainant is VUR Village Trading No. 1 Limited t/a Village Hotels, United Kingdom, represented by Gateley Legal, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Rivero Merlot, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <village-hotels.net> is registered with Omnis Network, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 9, 2021. On June 9, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 9, 2021, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 10, 2021 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 June 14, 2021.

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 June 22, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 12, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 13, 2021.

The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on July 21, 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 Complainant is a company that is organized under the laws of the United Kingdom and which trades as “Village Hotels” using the website at “www.village-hotels.co.uk”. Established in 1995, the Complainant owns and operates 31 hotels in the United Kingdom. For the 12 months to December 31, 2019, it generated sales of more than GBP 215 million.

The Complainant is the owner of a portfolio of trademarks registered in relation to hotel services and related services, including United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00003133461 for the word trademark VILLAGE HOTELS (filed on October 27, 2015, and entered into the register on March 18, 2016).

The disputed domain name was registered on November 25, 2020. The Complainant has provided undated screenshots of the website resolving from the disputed domain name, and screenshots of its own website taken on June 8, 2021. The website resolving from the disputed domain contained numerous photographs of buildings, rooms, facilities, and guests that are the same as photographs on the Complainant’s website. As at the date of this decision, it appears that the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which it has rights because the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s VILLAGE HOTELS trademark and website address, differing only by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.net”.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because: (i) the Respondent attempted to engage in fraud by falsely representing itself as the Complainant and purporting to offer the Complainant’s hotel services in the Complainant’s name, through using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website featuring trademarks, logos, text, and photographs copied from the Complainant’s website, with the only difference being the contact details; (ii) the website resolving from the disputed domain name was taken down following correspondence from the Complainant’s Head of IT to the website hosting company; (iii) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; and (iv) the Respondent was not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because: (i) it is beyond doubt that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name, as demonstrated by its attempted fraud of falsely representing itself as the Complainant and appearing to offer the Complainant’s hotel services in the Complainant’s name; and (ii) the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website featuring trademarks, logos, text, and photographs copied from the Complainant’s website, with the only difference being the contact details.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Once the gTLD “.net” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s registered word trademark VILLAGE HOTELS, with a hyphen inserted between the two words. The Complainant’s word trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The addition of a hyphen between the words “village” and “hotels” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s word trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, is not otherwise affiliated with the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its VILLAGE HOTELS word trademark. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by, or has made a bona fide use of, the disputed domain name, or that it has, for any other reason, rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The evidence provided by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain name was used to resolve to a website that purported to offer hotel services in the name of “Village Hotels”, using photographs and text that are the same as photographs and text found on the Complainant’s own website. Given the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s trademark and the absence of any relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant, such a use of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide use nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent has not rebutted this. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain name was registered many years after the Complainant first registered its VILLAGE HOTELS word trademark. It is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name ignorant of the existence of the Complainant’s VILLAGE HOTELS trademark, given that the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark with the mere addition of a hyphen between the two words, and that it has been used in an attempt to impersonate the Complainant. Furthermore, the evidence on the record provided by the Complainant indicates that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website by creating confusion in the minds of the public as to an association between the website and the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used 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, <village-hotels.net>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Andrew F. Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: August 4, 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/