The Complainant is Lotus Group Limited of London, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the “United Kingdom”), represented by Travlaw LLP Solicitors, the United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Dial A Flights of Milton Keynes, the United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 14, 2016. On January 15, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 16, 2016, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on January 20, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 9, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 10, 2016.
The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on February 19, 2016. 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 company registered in England and Wales. It is a provider of flight booking and travel services and operates a website at “”.
The Complainant is the owner of the following registered trade marks:
- United Kingdom trademark number 2027383 for DIAL-A-FLIGHT registered on January 17, 1997 in Class 39 for services including travel agency and booking services;
- United Kingdom trademark number 2379521 for “DialAFlight” (a figurative mark) registered on April 28, 2006 also in Class 39 for services including travel agency and booking services.
The disputed domain name was registered on January 8, 2016.
The Complainant has submitted evidence that the disputed domain name has been used to resolve to a website at “www.”, which appears to offer flight booking services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states that it is an established travel and flights provider with an excellent reputation within the United Kingdom.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name came to its attention when it received complaints from customers who had made travel reservations via the Respondent’s website. It provides examples of such customer complaints.
The Complainant submits that, on investigation, the Respondent appears to be a bogus company which defrauds customers out of money by pretending to book flights for them. The Complainant states that the Respondent offers prices that cannot be commercially possible and that on making payment the customers hear nothing further from the Respondent. Many such customers have then contacted the Complainant believing it to be the Respondent. The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent displays an “IATA” logo on its website although it is not a member of IATA (International Air Transport Association) and that when customers have asked the Respondent for its ATOL (Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing) number it has responded by providing the Complainant’s ATOL number.
The Complainant exhibits a “cease and desist” letter dated January 11, 2016 sent by its solicitors to the Respondent and states that no response was received to the letter.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In particular, it states that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods and services, that the Respondent has not commonly been known by the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In particular, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in order to confuse customers by passing itself off as the Complainant and to mislead and defraud those customers. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Even in a case such as this where the Respondent has not responded to the Complaint, it is still necessary for the Complainant to establish that all of the three above elements are present. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the distinctive element of the Complainant’s trademarks referred to above is the term “dial a flight”. The Panel also accepts that the Complainant has an established reputation under that name in the United Kingdom. The disputed domain name is substantially the same as the distinctive part of the Complainant’s trademarks with the addition of the letter “s”. The addition of that letter does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademarks and, in the circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant’s submissions give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. While it was open to the Respondent to provide evidence of any rights or legitimate interests that it might claim to have, it has failed to participate in this proceeding and the Panel has no other evidence of any such rights or interests on the Respondent’s part. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s (uncontradicted) submissions and evidence concerning the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name and finds that such use for deceitful purposes does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests for the purposes of the Policy. In the circumstances the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
On the basis of the Complainant’s submissions and evidence, the Panel finds that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in order to impersonate the Complainant and to take unfair commercial advantage of the Complainant’s reputation and goodwill.
The disputed domain name consists of the term “dial a flight” with the addition of the letter “s”. Since the terms “dial a flights” is not even grammatically correct, and in view also of the Respondent’s actual use of the name, the Panel can only reasonably infer that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in the knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks and business and for the purposes of impersonating the Complainant.
It is also apparent from the Complainant’s evidence that customers have dealt with the Respondent believing it to be the Complainant and that, far from doing anything to displace that confusion, the Respondent has in fact given the Complainant’s ATOL number to customers who enquired about that number.
In the circumstances, the Panel finds that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a service on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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.
Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: February 23, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy