The Complainant is MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. of Haryana, India, represented by Mohan Associates, India.
The Respondent is Raj Kumar of Mumbai, India / PrivacyP of Nobby Beach, Australia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 2, 2012. On April 3, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 4, 2012, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response 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 5, 2012, 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, 2012.
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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 13, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 3, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 4, 2012.
The Center appointed Amarjit Singh as the sole panelist in this matter on May 16, 2012. 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 leading online travel company that was founded in the year 2000 to empower the Indian traveler with instant booking and comprehensive choices, the company began its journey in the United States of America-India travel market. It aimed to offer a range of best-value products and services along with cutting-edge technology and dedicated round-the-clock customer support.
The Complainant commenced operations in 2000 and in the first five years following its inception, the Complainant focused on the non-resident Indian market in the United States, servicing mainly their need for United States-India inbound air tickets.
The Complainant has designed its websites to provide its customers with a user-friendly experience. According to comScore, “” was the second most visited travel website in India.
The Complainant currently operate the websites “” (including the sub-domain “”) and “”, servicing the Indian domestic and outbound market, the United States-India inbound market (focusing in particular on non-resident Indians in the United States) and the United Arab Emirates as well as neighboring Middle East countries, respectively.
The Complainant has also registered various domain names, including the following:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
The Complainant holds the registration of the mark MAKEMYTRIP in international class 39 in India vide registration No. 1447892 dated April 25, 2006.
The disputed domain name was registered on April 14, 2010. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The disputed domain name essentially capitalizes on the use of the trademark, trade name, corporate name and domain names of the Complainant. The Complainant is globally recognized and is a global player, the use of such a misleading term only adds to the confusion in the minds of Internet users that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant.
The act of the Respondent is registering a domain name comprising of the Complainant’s well-known trademark / service mark in its entirety and in a manner clearly intended to cause confusion / deception as to the source / origin of such domain name.
The trademarks have attained widespread fame and recognition not only in India but also in several countries in Europe and Asia and in the United States. In the disputed domain name, the Respondent has used the word “makemytrip” to falsely indicate that it has a trade nexus with the Complainant, whereas, in fact, the Respondent has no such relationship with the Complainant. The Complainant has not authorized or licensed the use of its trademark to the Respondent.
The Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a website that attempts to replicate the “look and feel” of the Complainant’s website and offers links to (services of) competitors of the Complainant. The intention of the Respondent is to capitalize on the Complainant’s well-known mark, and to mislead Internet users searching for the same. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the registered proprietor of the mark MAKEMYTRIP under international class 39 in India and also claims to have used the mark in different parts of the world including as part of its corporate name and its domain name .
The Respondent has not responded to the claims of the Complainant. In the absence of any denial on the part of the Respondent, and on the basis of the Registration Certificates for the MAKEMYTRIP trademark in India as provided by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the MAKEMYTRIP mark and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that mark (also considering that the hyphen is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark).
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant is successful in proving the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized or licensed the use of its trademark to the Respondent. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has not disputed the claim of the Complainant, and the Panel has not found any rights or legitimate interests in the record. The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that the following circumstance, if found by the panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
“by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.”
In this case the disputed domain name resolves to a website that attempts to replicate the “look and feel” of the Complainant’s website and offers links to (services of) competitors of the Complainant. Considering also the notoriety of the Complainant and its trademark, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.
It is pertinent to note that the Written Notice sent by the Center to the Respondent was not delivered due to the non-availability of correct addresses in the WhoIs record of the Registrar. The Panel finds that this is further evidence of bad faith on part of the Respondent.
In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy therefore has been fulfilled. 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 be transferred to the Complainant.
Amarjit Singh
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 26, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy