Source: https://dnattorney.com/dn-resources/meridien-v-moronica/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 17:42:39+00:00

Document:
Domain name  Domain name dispute resolution policy  Trademark  Identical  Confusingly similar  Legitimate rights  Bad faith.
Complainant is registered owner of trademark LE MERIDIEN in numerous countries. Respondent registered the domain name, lemeridien.com. Complainant alleged that Respondent has no legitimate rights to the name since it is not using the name for business purposes, and that Complainant has invested substantial sums of money in developing and marketing their services under this trademark. Complainant also alleged that Respondents name is identical to its name, and that the name was registered and used in bad faith.
For all intents and purposes, Respondents domain name is identical to Complainants mark. The Policy only requires the Panel to compare the domain name and trademarks or service marks in this part of the test. The likelihood of de facto confusion is irrelevant.
Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor does it have a legitimate non-commercial use of the name. Respondent has not received permission from Complainant to use the trademark. Complainants rights to the name precede Respondents registration of the name. Respondent has not shown that it did intend to use the name with a bona fide purpose in mind. Thus, Respondent has no rights to the name.
Although MERIDIEN may be a generic term, the trademark LE MERIDIEN has acquired a distinctiveness which extends beyond its sole use as that as the indication of source for a chain of hotels. The name MERIDIEN has no relevancy to the business of Respondent. Respondent has intentionally tried to attract internet users to its site by creating confusion with Complainants mark. The domain name is connected to Complainant and, thus, its use by another party indicates bad faith.
Allocation Network G.m.b.H. v. Steve Gregory, Case D2000-0016.
Interep National Radio Sales, Inc. v. Technical Staffing Corporation, Case D2000-0175.
Meredith Corp. v. Cityhome, Inc., Case D2000-0223.
Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net Case No. D2000-0226.
Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondee en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., Case No. D2000-0163.
Complainant is Société des Hotels Meridien SA, 10 rue Vercingétorix, 75014 Paris, France.
On May 17, 2000 the Registrar confirmed that the Domain Name had been registered via the Registrars registration services and that the Respondent was the current registrant of the Domain Name. The Registrar also confirmed that the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy was applicable to the Domain Name.
At paragraph 12 of the Complaint the Complainant alleges that Société des Hotels Meridien SA is one of the worlds leading hotels and resorts companies with over 110 hotels and resorts throughout the world. The complainant also alleges that Le Meridien Hotels have ranked among the worlds top hotels for the last 27 years.
Additionally, the Complainant alleges, beginning at subparagraph 12(5) that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect to the Domain Name, that the Respondent is not currently using the Domain Name and that the Respondent has not obtained the name with a view to using it in connection with a business. On the contrary, the Complainant alleges at subparagraph 12(6), the Respondent has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purposes of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of his out of pocket expenses directly related to the Domain Name. This is supported, says the Complainant, by Respondents offer to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant for U.S.$50,000 when contacted by telephone on an undisclosed date.
The Respondent further maintains that the Trademarks registered by the Complainant have no connection with online streaming radio services so there is no risk that a consumer may be led to believe that the services to be provided by the Respondent have any connection with the Complainants hotel chain.
In this regard, the Panel also declines to deviate from the ICANN Policy, which clearly states that having a domain name which is identical to a registered trademark is sufficient to meet the test established by paragraph 4(a)(i) even if there is no likelihood of de facto confusion. Therefore, the Respondents statement to the effect that that the trademarks registered by the Complainant have no connection with online streaming radio services and therefore there is no risk of confusion on behalf of the consumer is of no relevance.
The Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent has failed to establish a legitimate right or interest under paragraph 4(c)(ii) and (iii) in that there is no evidence to support a finding that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name nor is there any evidence that the Respondent has a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name. Additionally, the Panel finds that that: the Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant, nor has he received any permission or consent to use the trademark; the Complainant has prior rights in that trademark which precede Respondents registration of the Domain Name; and the Respondent is not (either as an individual, business or other organization) commonly known by the name LE MERIDIEN.
The Panel is also of the opinion that the Respondent has failed to establish a legitimate right or interest under paragraph 4(c)(i), i.e. that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate the existence of the use of, or preparation to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but is of the opinion that the Panels motivation in this regard warrants some discussion.
In decisions by the various panels constituted by the World Intellectual Property Organisation to resolve domain name disputes there has been some discussion of what constitutes a bona fide offering of services for the purposes of paragraph 4(c)(i). Although the Panel is well aware that the principle of stare decisis does not apply in these proceedings and that the Panel is not bound by decisions reached by earlier panels, the Panel is of the opinion that a review of some the cases provides some support for the Panels decision.
In his Response, the Respondent produced a number of affidavits from colleagues as well as e-mails to potential software providers in support of his intention to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. In the Panels opinion the evidence provided by the Respondent is of low probative value and therefore insufficient to overcome a prima facie finding of no legitimate rights or interests in the spirit of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the ICANN Policy. The e-mails and affidavits indicate an interest on behalf of the Respondent in developing a web site providing streaming live audio over the Internet but fail to show even a small monetary or intellectual investment by the Respondent in such a venture. As a consequence, the Panel believes the proposed use of the web site does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services for the purposes of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the ICANN Policy.
Additionally, although the Panels research has revealed that the Domain Name is currently being used as the web address for a site under construction with some general text as to the potential use of the site by the Respondent, there is no evidence to support a finding that the site was being used as such before notice of the dispute was made to the Respondent, as required by paragraph 4(c)(i) of the ICANN Policy, nor are there any statements made in this regard by the Respondent. The Panel has therefore chosen to ignore that the site is being used at the present time. In this regard the Panel did take into account the concerns voiced in the decision of Meredith Corp. v. Cityhome, Inc., Case D2000-0223, where the panel found that the non-use of the domain name for a period of eight months was not determinative of non-use.
Therefore, the Panel disagrees with the Respondents statement that given its generic nature the trademark LE MERIDIEN is necessarily of weak distinctiveness. As a result, the Panel disagrees with the Respondents statement to the effect that a monopoly can never be claimed for the use of a generic term.
Additionally, the Panel finds the Respondents assertion, mentioned above, that there are many trademark registrations throughout the world using combinations including the word MERIDIEN of only small significance. In the present case, the trademark in question is LE MERIDIEN. The Panels own research of the U.S. Federal Trademark Database reveals only the Complainant has registered the trademark LE MERIDIEN, regardless of use. The Panels decision may have been different had the Respondent obtained a registration for the use of LE MERIDIEN for radio services.
It is the Panels opinion, therefore, that although MERIDIEN may have a generic meaning, in the case at hand it has no relevancy to the business of the Respondent. It is also the Panels opinion that the trademark LE MERIDIEN has acquired a distinctiveness which extends beyond its sole use as that as the indication of source for a chain of hotels. Additionally, in its Response the Respondent admits having searched the U.S. trademark register prior to registering the Domain Name and admits to a close connection with France where the hotel chain Le Meridien is popular and well known. Therefore, the Respondent cannot (and does not) plead lack of notice of the Complainants trademark at the time of registering the Domain Name.
Based on the above the Panel finds that by registering and using the Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his web site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondents web site. Pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the ICANN Policy such circumstances may be taken as evidence of bad faith and therefore the Panel finds that the Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the ICANN Policy. The Panel also finds that the Domain Name is obviously connected with the Complainant and therefore its products and that its use by someone with no connection with the Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith (see Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net Case No. D2000-0226 and Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., Case No. D2000-0163). It is of note that the Panels decision may have been different had the Respondent registered (for example) "lemeridienradio" or similar.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the complaint should be allowed and the Domain Name "lemeridien.com" be transferred to the Complainant and so directs Register.com, Inc., to do so forthwith..

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.