The Complainant is Skyscanner Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Keltie LLP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Sachin Rawat, Farebulk of Delhi, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 30, 2018. On April 30, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 30, 2018, 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 proceedings commenced on May 2, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 22, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 23, 2018.
The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on May 30, 2018. 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 the owner of International Trademark Registration No. 1030086 for SKYSCANNER registered on December 1, 2009.
The Complainant has proven to be the owner of the SKYSCANNER trademark, which enjoys protection through numerous registrations worldwide.
The Complainant is, inter alia, the owner of:
- Indian Trademark Registration No. 1890840 for SKYSCANNER registered on December 2, 2009.
- Indian Trademark Application No. 2287020 for SKYSCANNER & Cloud Device registered on February 22, 2012.
- United States Trademark Registration No. 4420284 for SKYSCANNER & Cloud Device, registered on October 22, 2013.
- United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. 2313916 for SKYSCANNER registered on April 30, 2004.
- Canadian Trademark Registration No. TMA786689 for SKYSCANNER registered on January 10, 2011.
- New Zealand Trademark Registration No. 816550 for SKYSCANNER registered on October 7, 2010.
The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on February 6, 2018, and currently resolves to a website containing the message “The service is unavailable”.
Whereas, it appears that for a certain period the disputed domain name was used to provide advertising services relating to flights and associated information under the SKYSCANNER trademark.
This use stopped after GoDaddy, in response to a Trademark Complaint filed by the Complainant, removed the contents placed on the website corresponding to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests whatsoever with respect to the disputed domain name; and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name 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 name, paragraphs 4(a)(i) – (iii) of the Policy require that the Complainant must demonstrate to the Panel that:
(i) The disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the SKYSCANNER trademark.
The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s registered trademark in its entirety. The added term, “booking”, is not sufficient to avoid the confusing similarity between the trademark and the disputed domain name.
In fact, it has already been held by previous UDRP panels that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) is insufficient to distinguish a domain name from a complainant’s trademark. Indeed, the Complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the SKYSCANNER trademark 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 name. The Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the name “skyscanner-booking” or by any similar name. 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 make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In fact, it appears that the disputed domain name was apparently used to provide advertising services relating to flights and associated information under the SKYSCANNER trademark, i.e. services competing with those of the Complainant. The Respondent has not come forward with any explanation that demonstrates any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not formally replied to the Complainant’s contentions, claiming any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel, on the basis of the evidence presented, accepts and agrees with the Complainant’s contentions that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
The Complainant has documented that at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent was most probably aware of the Complainant’s activity and its trademarks. Indeed it appears that the disputed domain name was used to provide advertising services relating to flights and associated information under the SKYSCANNER trademark, i.e. services competing with those of the Complainant.
It should be noted that the SKYSCANNER trademark has been registered and used for several years all over the world, and it enjoys a widespread reputation and high degree of recognition at least in its own field of activity. As a result the SKYSCANNER mark is not one that traders could legitimately adopt, especially in the same field of business, other than for the purpose of creating the impression of an association with the Complainant.
Consequently, 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 name.
The Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes a disruption of the Complainant’s business and qualifies as bad faith registration and use under the Policy. The fact that the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website does not preclude a finding of bad faith.
Finally, further inference of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name is given by the fact that the Respondent has never replied to the contentions made in the Trademark Complaint filed by the Complainant with GoDaddy. The Respondent has not denied the assertions of bad faith made by the Complainant in the pre-action communications and in this proceeding, so it is therefore reasonable to assume that if the Respondent had legitimate purposes for registering and using the disputed domain name, it would have responded to these assertions.
Accordingly, the Panel finds, on the basis of the evidence presented, that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name 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.
Fabrizio Bedarida
Sole Panelist
Date: June 12, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy