WIPO Domain Name Decision D2018-1987 for skyscannerflight.com
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Skyscanner Limited v. Domain May Be for Sale, Check A Domain Admin, Domain Registries Foundation Case No. D2018-1987 1. The Parties
Complainant is Skyscanner Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Keltie LLP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Domain May Be for Sale, Check A Domain Admin, Domain Registries Foundation of Panama City, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 31, 2018. On August 31, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On September 4, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a request of clarification by the Center, Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on September 12, 2018.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 18, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 8, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on October 15, 2018.
The Center appointed Richard W. Page as sole panelist in this matter on October 30, 2018. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of 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
Complainant is a United Kingdom company and provides an online search engine relating to travel.
Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks including International Trade Mark Registration No. 900393 for SKYSCANNER (registered on March 3, 2006) and International Trade Mark Registration No. 1030086 for SKYSCANNER (registered on December 1, 2009), which are two of a total of 91 registrations worldwide (collectively the “SKYSCANNER Mark”). Prior UDRP decisions have found that Complainant has rights in the SKYSCANNER Mark.
The Skyscanner website now attracts 60 million visits per month and the SKYSCANNER smart device app has been downloaded 70 million times. Complainant’s services are available in over thirty languages and in seventy currencies.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on May 14, 2018. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parking page with several pay-per-click links. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is similar to the SKYSCANNER Mark because it includes the entirety of the SKYSCANNER Mark with the addition of the phrase “flight” which is non˗distinctive in the travel services line of commerce.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant further alleges that Respondent does not own any registered rights in any trademarks which contain part or all of the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant has not given its consent for Respondent to use the SKYSCANNER Mark in the Disputed Domain Name or otherwise. Complaint alleges that Respondent is not commonly known as “Skyscanner Flight”. Respondent has directed the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a parking page with several pay-per-click links.
Complainant argues that aside from the generation of pay-per-click revenue, there is no indication that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.
Complainant further argues that, given the famous nature of the SKYSCANNER Mark and the fact that no other individual or business owns trademark rights (whether registered or unregistered) in the SKYSCANNER Mark, not only is it likely that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights prior to registering the Disputed Domain Name, but it is inevitable that visitors to the Disputed Domain Name (once it resolves to an active website) would mistakenly believe there to be an association with Complainant.
Complainant contends that its registered rights date back to 2002, Complainant submits that Respondent must have been aware of the reputation of Complainant’s business under its SKYSCANNER Mark at the time Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name. At which stage Complainant already enjoyed global success. As such, Complainant asserts that Respondent filed the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
Complainant further contends that Respondent’s website points to a parking page containing pay-per-click links to third party businesses providing travel arrangement services, in and of itself, pay-per-click advertising is a commercial use of the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant further contends that the pay-per-click links related to services protected by Complainant rights and pay-per-click advertising in this manner must constitute bad faith. As such, Complainant submits that Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name in an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet uses to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the SKYSCANNER Mark as to the source, sponsorship, and affiliation of the website to which the Disputed Domain Name points.
Complainant concludes that Respondent has been named in six UDRP decisions since 2015. All cases resulted in the transfer of the domain names away from Respondent. This shows that R