The Complainant is Beijing Qunar Information Technology Co., Ltd. of Beijing, China, represented by O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Zhou Xiangsheng of Wuhan, Hubei, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 8, 2012. On December 10, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 12, 2012, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 17, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 6, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 8, 2013.
The Center appointed Linda Chang, Christopher J. Pibus and Yukukazu Hanamizu as panelists in this matter on January 24, 2013. 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
The Complainant, founded in 2005, aggregates and analyzes fragmented travel product information from travel service providers to its customers via its official site “”.
The Complainant’s official site ‘’’’ is one of the most popular travel websites in China, with an average of 30 million monthly unique visitors. Statistics provided by Internet metrics company Alexa indicate ‘’’’ is the highest-ranked site in the tourism research service sector.
The Domain Name was registered on September 11, 2011. At the time the Panel renders this decision, the Domain Name is used in connection with parking or pay-per-click service by incorporating various travel-related sponsored links on to the website at the Domain Name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark QUNAR.COM. The Complainant claims it owns eight trademark registrations for QUNAR.COM, and it also has established common law rights in the marks QUNAR and QUNAR.COM through extensive and continuous commercial use. The Complainant asserts the Respondent is “typosquatting” on Complainant’s website” ”, by using the Domain Name which comprises a slightly misspelled version of QUNAR and QUNAR.COM.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent does not use, or intend to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent is not known by the name “Qunanr” and has no legitimate rights in the marks QUNAR or QUNAR.COM. The Respondent does not have a license, permission, contract, or other relationship that allows Respondent to own, use, or control the Domain Name.
The Complainant finally contends that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent chose the Domain Name with the intention of misleading consumers by falsely suggesting an association with the Complainant, and has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to another website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of service on another website.
For all of the above reasons, the Complainant requests transfer of the Domain Name to its ownership. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
To succeed in a complaint, the Complainant must, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, satisfy the panel of the following three elements:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Based on the evidence presented by the Complainant and the relevant provisions of the Policy, the Panel concludes as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds the Complainant owns the following trademarks in China:
Number Mark Registration Date
5664701
Qunar.Com
(word & figurative mark)
12-28-2009
5664702
Qunar.Com
(word & figurative mark)
10-28-2009
5664703
Qunar.Com
(word & figurative mark)
10-28-2009
5664704
Qunar.Com
(word & figurative mark)
12-28-2009
5664705
去哪儿？Qunar.Com
(word & figurative mark)
12-28-2009
5664706
去哪儿？Qunar.Com
(word & figurative mark)
10-28-2009
5664707
去哪儿？Qunar.Com
(word & figurative mark)
10-28-2009
5664708
去哪儿？Qunar.Com
(word & figurative mark)
12-28-2009
The above trademark registrations predate the Domain Name and the Panel thus determines the Complainant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate its established rights in the mark QUNAR.COM. The Panel further holds that ‘’’’ is the Complainant’s primary Internet presence and point of contact with its customers, and “Q” has become the distinctive identifier associated exclusively with the Complainant’s services, after its continuous and extensive use in commerce.
The Domain Name contains a variation of the trademark QUNAR.COM, which slightly differs from the Complainant’s trademark by adding an extra letter “n” between the letters “a” and “r”. The Panel holds the conduct of the Respondent constitutes “typo squatting”, which creates a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. See Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington,WIPO Case No. D2002-0775; Oxygen Media, LLC v. Primary Source,WIPO Case No. D2000-0362; and AltaVista Company v. Saeid Yomtobian,WIPO Case No. D2000-0937.
Accordingly, the Panel holds the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out a list of circumstances, any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a domain name:
(i) use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;
(ii) the fact that respondent has been commonly known by the domain name; or
(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
As contended by the Complainant, the Respondent does not have a license, permission, contract, or other relationship that allows it to own, use, or control the Domain Name.
There is no evidence of any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use on the part of the Respondent, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services for the purposes of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. No evidence on the record indicates that the Respondent is known by the name “qunanr”.
The Respondent is using the Domain Name in connection with parking or pay-per-click service by incorporating various sponsored links on its associated website, so that the Respondent as owner of the Domain Name will get paid if an Internet visitor clicks on any of these sponsored links. The Panel finds that the use of the Domain Name, which has been found confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark, in the way stated above precludes the Respondent from using the Domain Name in line with paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and the burden of production shifts to the Respondent accordingly. Failure of the Respondent to respond enables the Panel to conclude that there is no evidence with respect to the Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name. See Carolina Herrera, Ltd. v. Alberto Rincon Garcia,WIPO Case No. D2002-0806; and International Hospitality Management – IHM S.p.A. v. Enrico Callegari Ecostudio,WIPO Case No. D2002-0683.
For all of the above reasons, the Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Based on the evidence produced by the Complainant, the Panel acknowledges ‘’’’ is one of the most visited websites in China. The Respondent is a Chinese citizen, and is using the Domain Name to offer travel-related sponsored links. The Panel finds it reasonable to infer that the Respondent had, or should have had, knowledge of the Complainant and its mark QUNAR.COM at the time of registering the Domain Name.
The Panel agrees that Internet users who mistakenly type “qunanr” instead of “qunar” will be confused as to whether they have reached the actual official website of the Complainant, ‘’’’. The Panel concludes that the Respondent chose the Domain Name with the intention of misleading Internet users by falsely suggesting an association with the Complainant, and is intentionally using the Domain Name in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its 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 the Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
By the time of being notified of this dispute, the Respondent had registered the Domain Name for more than one year, but yet has not put the Domain Name into actual use (other than for use as a pay-per-click page as described above). There is a text link on the website of the Domain Name which redirects Internet visitors to a domain broker, where the Domain Name is available for sale. The Panel finds the Respondent’s offering for sale of the Domain Name a further indicative of bad faith registration and use.
In light of the above facts and reasons, the Panel therefore determines that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith pursuant to the Policy. 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 Domain Name, , be transferred to the Complainant.
Linda Chang
Presiding Panelist
Christopher J. Pibus
Panelist
Yukukazu Hanamizu
Panelist
Date: February 7, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy