VUR Village Trading No 1 Limited, operator of the “Village Hotels” chain across the UK, tried to claim the Ghanaian domain TheVillageHotelGh.com, arguing it infringed its registered VILLAGE and VILLAGE HOTELS marks.
The site in question promoted a small boutique hotel in Kumasi, Ghana, with no apparent connection to the British group.
While the Panel recognized that the complainant’s marks were validly registered, it emphasized that “village” and “hotel” are everyday dictionary words used widely around the world, and that such generic marks are inherently weak outside the complainant’s local market. Searches showed thousands of unrelated “village hotel” trademarks globally, undercutting any claim of exclusivity.
The Panel found no imitation, no phishing, and no evidence that the Ghanaian site was targeting UK consumers or seeking to exploit the complainant’s goodwill. Privacy use and incomplete web content weren’t enough to prove bad faith; with no showing of deliberate abuse or commercial gain through confusion, the WIPO Panel denied the complaint.
This is a reminder that even a registered mark built on common words can’t fence off the entire world from using similar words.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER – ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
VUR Village Trading No 1 Limited v. Albert Mensah, A.M Cromwell Case No. D2025-37561. The Parties
The Complainant is VUR Village Trading No 1 Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Taylor Wessing LLP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Albert Mensah, A.M Cromwell, Ghana.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name thevillagehotelgh.com is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 16, 2025. On September 16, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 16, 2025, 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 (“Entity name not publicly available / Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf”) and contact information in the Complaint.
The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 17, 2025, 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 September 18, 2025.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 September 19, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 9, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 10, 2025.
The Center appointed W. Scott Blackmer as the sole panelist in this matter on October 15, 2025. 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 and its affiliates are companies incorporated in the United Kingdom that operate a chain of 34 VILLAGE-branded hotels in the United Kingdom, as described on the Complainant’s main website at “www.village-hotels.co.uk”, with linked sites on four social media platforms. The first of these hotels opened in 1994. The record shows that the Complainant’s Facebook page has more than 137,000 followers, and the Complaint attaches evidence showing that its other social media accounts collectively have tens of thousands of followers or viewers. The Complainant earned 2024 revenues of more than GBP 278 million associated with its VILLAGE marks. The Complainant attaches evidence that an Internet search for “village hotels” produces results almost exclusively related to the Complainant on the first screen (the Panel notes that this is true only when the browser is geolocated to the United Kingdom). The Complaint also attaches evidence that the Complainant has received awards for excellence in tourism in the United Kingdom.
The Complainant holds several relevant trademark registrations, including the following:
Mark Jurisdiction Reg. Number Reg. Date International Class(es)
VILLAGE (word) United Kingdom UK00002107918 October 3, 1997 IC 41
VILLAGE (word) European Union 004982021 July 29, 2010 IC 41, 43
VILLAGE HOTELS
(word) European Union 014764781 March 9, 2016 IC 41, 43, and
44
VILLAGE THE HOTEL CLUB
(word) United Kingdom UK00003133460 March 18, 2016 IC 41, 43, and
44
VILLAGE THE HOTEL CLUB
(figurative) International, multiple jurisdictions
designated 1311076 April 27, 2016 IC 41, 43, and
44The disputed domain name was registered on September 1, 2025, by Albert Mensah as “IT Officer” of the organization “A.M Cromwell”, giving a postal address in Ghana with a Gmail contact email address.
The disputed domain name resolves to a multipage website (the “Respondent’s website”) in English, with linked social media sites, advertising “The Village Hotel”, a “boutique 4-star retreat” in Daban, near the Kumasi International Airport in the Ahanti Region of Ghana.1 “Dev by Cromwell” appears after “The Village” in the copyright notice. The Panel notes that A.M Cromwell, the organization listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name, appears in online business directories as an advertising and marketing firm based in Accra, Ghana.2 The website pictures a small, upscale hotel and restaurant with indoor and outdoor facilities for “intimate celebrations” and “small receptions”. Some pages of the website (such as “Jobs”) repeat text found on others, and other pages do not appear to be fully developed. For example, the site has language tabs for both English and French, but it is published so far only in English. Bits of “Lorem ipsum” placeholder text in Latin appear in several places, including in response to FAQs, indicating that the website developer has not finished the site. The Panel notes that the hotel does not appear in popular online hotel booking
1According to the evidence filed by the Complainant, at the time of filing of the Complaint, the “About Us” section of the Respondent’s website referred to “The Village Hotel, Kumasi’s hidden gem in Daban.”
2Noting the general powers of a panel articulated in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, it is commonly accepted that a panel may
undertake limited factual research into matters of public record, as the Panel has done in this proceeding. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), section 4.8.sites such as Booking.com, TripAdvisor.com, and Hotels.com or online customer review sites such as Google.com or TrustPilot.com, but this could be explained if the hotel only very recently opened for business.
The Respondent’s website displays a figurative logo “The Village Hotel” visually dissimilar to the Complainant’s VILLAGE HOTEL CLUB figurative logo that appears on the Complainant’s website (which is not the same figurative mark listed above). The “look and feel” of the Respondent’s website is also entirely different to that of the Complainant’s website. The Respondent’s website emphasizes the “intimacy of a boutique stay with the refinement of world-class hospitality” for “discerning travelers” seeking an “experience” unlike that of “large chain hotels”. The Complainant’s website, by contrast, is dynamic and eye-catching, with large, colorful, moving text blocks and images advertising a multitude of features and activities. The Complainant’s website heralds “some big changes” for visitors looking to “get the best value for your money” and interested in either “business or leisure” at “all our hotels across the UK”.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its VILLAGE HOTELS mark. The Complainant states that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its VILLAGE HOTELS marks and asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant argues that the Respondent’s website is “misaligned” with the purported subject, displaying a Swiss postal address and contact telephone number (the Panel notes that this is no longer the case) and inappropriate text for some sections of the website, with placeholder text that is not in a detectable language. (This also appears to have improved in the version available at the time of this Decision.) The Complainant also finds it suspicious that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name using a domain privacy service.
The Complainant infers that the Respondent had no bona fide reason to register the disputed domain name and did so as a cybersquatter, to attract Internet users seeking the Complainant to another site for commercial gain and to block the Complainant from using the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.
The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark (the registered VILLAGE, VILLAGE HOTELS, and VILLAGE THE HOTEL CLUB word marks) for the purposes of the Policy, which suffice to ground the Complaint. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.
The Panel finds these marks are recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to these marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
Although the addition of other terms (here, “gh”, the common two-letter country code for the country Ghana) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.
Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Respondent has published a website associated with the disputed domain name advertising The Village Hotel in Ghana, and it appears to be possible to book a reservation through the Respondent’s website, but the Respondent has not submitted a Response with evidence of actual business conducted through the new and partially incomplete site. There is no record that the Respondent or its client are “commonly known” by a corresponding name or has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide commercial offering. However, in view of the Panel’s analysis as to the registration and use in bad faith, the Panel considers that it is not necessary to reach a conclusion as to the second element of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. These include those to which the Complainant alludes, paragraph 4(b)(ii) (a pattern of cybersquatting to deprive a trademark holder of a possibility of reflecting its mark in a disputed domain name – but there is no evidence of this on the current record) and (iv) intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark. Both presume that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s VILLAGE HOTELS marks and meant to exploit them.
Despite the Respondent’s failure to appear in these proceedings, the evidence for bad faith is weak. The Complainant’s marks are composed of dictionary words, and its hotels are limited to the United Kingdom. The Complainant’s VILLAGE HOTELS are well advertised online and otherwise in the United Kingdom, but as the Panel observed above, they are not so pervasive in online searches conducted on browsers located outside the United Kingdom. A search for “village hotel” in the WIPO Global Brand Database produces more
than 2800 pages listing registered trademarks worldwide containing those words, only a small percentage of which involve the Complainant. The disputed domain name adds the country code for Ghana and is apparently used only for a single hotel in Ghana. It is difficult to see how the Respondent was necessarily targeting the United Kingdom hotel chain or would benefit substantially from doing so. As detailed above, the Respondent’s website does not appear to be imitative of the Complainant’s website or to be aimed at the same consumer market. The fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name through a domain privacy service is inconclusive; there are good reasons to do so, such as avoiding spam and identify fraud.
On the current record, where the Complainant has the burden of proof to establish bad faith, the Respondent appears to be a legitimate marketing agency with a plausible reason to be developing a website for a hotel in Ghana that is not demonstrably targeting the trademarks of a United Kingdom hotel chain. Moreover, to date there is no evidence that the disputed domain name has been used for illegal or illicit activity such as a phishing or fraud scheme. Should such evidence come to light, that could warrant a refiling of the UDRP Complaint. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.18.
The evidence in the case file as presented does not indicate that the Respondent’s aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from or exploit the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has not been established.
7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.
/W. Scott Blackmer/
W. Scott Blackmer
Sole Panelist
Date: October 27, 2025
