WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-0787 for skysccanner.net
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Skyscanner Limited v. Milen Radumilo Case No. D2019-0787 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Skyscanner Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Keltie LLP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Milen Radumilo, Romania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameP (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 5, 2019. On April 5, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On April 5, 2019, 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 April 10, 2019 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 April 10, 2019.
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 April 11, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 1, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 2, 2019.
The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on May 23, 2019. 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 was founded in 2003 and it has offices in Barcelona, Beijing, Budapest, Edinburgh, Glasgow, London, Miami, Shenzhen, Singapore and Sofia. The Complainant offers a travel search website and provides its services through the website associated to the domain name .
The Complainant is the owner of inter alia, the following trademark registrations for the term “skyscanner”,
- European Union (“EU”) designation of International Trade Mark Registration No. 900393 for SKYSCANNER, registered on March 3, 2006;
- EU designation of International Trade Mark Registration No. 1030086 for SKYSCANNER and;
- United States designation of International Trade Mark Registration No. 1133058 for SKYSCANNER & Cloud device.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on May 8, 2017.
The Disputed Domain Name redirects Internet users to the Complainant’s website “”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name is virtually identical to the Complainant´s trademark.
Furthermore, the addition of another “C” is not sufficient to render the visual or phonetic characteristics of the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant´s trademark.
Finally, the Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is a deliberate misspelling of the Complainant´s trademark.
Rights or legitimate interests
The Complainant submits that the Respondent does not own any registered rights in any trademarks which comprise part or all of the Disputed Domain Name.
In addition, the term “Skyscanner” is not a descriptive word and does not have a dictionary meaning. Moreover, the Complainant has not given its consent to use an identical variation of the SKYSCANNER trademark in a domain name registration.
The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent is not commonly known as “Skyscanner” or “Skysccaner”.
Finally, the Complainant states that the Respondent has not made demonstrable preparation to use the Disputed Domain Name, in connection wit