The Complainant is trivago GmbH of Düsseldorf, Germany, represented by LEXEA Rechtsanwälte, Germany.
The Respondent is Mediatextual, S.L. B52516028 of Gijon, Spain. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names and are registered with N, Inc. (N LLC) (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 6, 2017. On June 6, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name . On the same day, 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 Respondent1 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 8, 2017, 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 June 13, 2017, therein adding the disputed domain name to the proceeding. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name . On June 14, 2017, 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 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 June 20, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 10, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 12, 2017.
The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on July 24, 2017. 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 in this administrative proceeding is trivago GmbH, a limited liability corporation duly incorporated under the laws of Germany. Its place of incorporation and principal place of business is Düsseldorf, Germany.
The Complainant has proven to be the owner of the TRIVAGO trademark which enjoys protection through several registrations worldwide.
The Complainant is, inter alia, the owner of:
International Trademark Registration No. 910828, TRIVAGO, registered on August 18, 2006 (classes 35, 38, 39 and 42);
and
United States of America (“United States”) Trademark Registration No. 4069216, TRIVAGO, registered on December 13, 2011 (classes 35, 38, 39 and 42).
The trademark is, inter alia, registered for the following services: price comparison services; travel booking; travel reservation and booking; reservation services (travel); organisation of travel events and trips.
The trademark is used by the Complainant for these services. The Complainant (through its office in the United States) maintains a well-known worldwide hotel price comparison website, i.e., “ ”.
The disputed domain names, and , were registered on June 20, 2015, and February 21, 2016 respectively.
The Complainant’s above trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain names.
The disputed domain names redirect Internet users to websites (“” and “”) that contain a search function for hotel accommodation. Instead of linking to the Complainant’s search engine, the engine of a direct competitor, “”, is addressed. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the TRIVAGO trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order for the Complainant to obtain a transfer of the disputed domain names, paragraphs 4(a)(i) – (iii) of the Policy require that the Complainant must demonstrate to the Panel that:
(i) The disputed domain names are 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 disputed domain names; and
(iii) The disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the TRIVAGO trademark.
The disputed domain names and incorporate the Complainant’s TRIVAGO trademark in its entirety, merely adding generic terms such as “hoteles” and “web” to such trademark.
It is well established that the addition of a term to a trademark does not alter the underlying trademark or negate the confusing similarity.
In addition, this Panel considers that the addition of the descriptive term “hoteles” (Spanish for “hotels”), which is purely descriptive of the Complainant’s business model, i.e., a hotel price comparison website, is not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity. On the contrary, this combination can increase confusion to consumers on the internet.
Therefore this Panel finds the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the trademark TRIVAGO in which the Complainant has rights.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
This Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or register any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent does not appear to engage in any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, nor any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In addition, the Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the disputed domain names or by a similar name. Moreover, the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions, claiming any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that, based on the record, the Complainant has demonstrated the Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Based on the evidence put forward by the Complainant, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark registrations and rights to the TRIVAGO mark when it registered the disputed domain names.
The Respondent’s knowledge of the TRIVAGO mark is particularly obvious given the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to redirect users to websites prominently displaying the TRIVAGO logo and containing a search function for hotel accommodation that directs to a website of a competitor of the Complainant, i.e., “”.
Indeed, the services offered under the disputed domain names are identical to those of the Complainant.
The Respondent’s use of the disputed domains names is therefore causing further disruption, since users are deceived into thinking that this is a bona fide offering of goods.
The Panel finds that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s marks and intentionally intended to create an association with the Complainant and its business at the time of registration of the disputed domain names.
The above-mentioned use of the disputed domain names, which constitutes an obvious and deliberate attempt to mislead Internet users into believing that the Respondent is affiliated with the Complainant, is also a clear indication of bad faith.
Finally, the Respondent has not responded to (nor denied) the assertions made by the Complainant in this proceeding.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of 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 disputed domain names, and , be transferred to the Complainant.
Fabrizio Bedarida
Sole Panelist
Date: July 28 2017
1 The Complaint was originally filed against a privacy service.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy