The Complainant is AMADEUS IT GROUP, S.A. of Madrid, Spain, represented by UBILIBET, Spain.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0151133672, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0151133672 of Toronto, Canada / Milen Radumilo of Bucharest, Romania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 27, 2018. On September 27, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, 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 the Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 2, 2018 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 October 5, 2018.
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 October 12, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 1, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 2, 2018.
The Center appointed Tommaso La Scala as the sole panelist in this matter on November 12, 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 a leading technological company which operates in the global travel sector since 1987 and it has over 15,000 employees in approximately 190 countries.
The Complainant is also the owner of several national and international trademark registrations – in many classes – consisting of the name AMADEUS, including the followings:
Lastly, the Complainant operates online through its primary website “”.
The Domain Name was registered on March 31, 2018. The registrant of the Domain Name – initially covered by a proxy registration service – is Milen Radumilo of Bucharest, Romania. The Domain Name redirects randomly towards different websites of the SEDO domain name trading platform, where pay-per-click links – including some directly related to the Complainant’s competitors – appear. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant submits that the Domain Name is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AMADEUS trademark, as it entirely incorporates such distinctive sign with the addition of letters “-www”. In particular, the Complainant believes this is a typosquatting case.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor is it making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademarks of another.
The Domain Name redirects to a pay-per-click parking site which redirects Internet users to a variety of third-party websites, as well as to websites of some of the Complainant's direct competitors.
Given the above, the Complainant further states that the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith, considering that the Respondent surely was aware that the AMADEUS trademark existed and was registered in many jurisdictions worldwide. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is generating pay-per-click revenues by exploiting a typosquatting website. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following elements:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(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 its registered rights in the AMADEUS trademark.
The Domain Name is composed of the AMADEUS trademark to which letters “-www” are added. That is a clear example of typosquatting, as “-www” is a reference to WorldWideWeb.
As indicated in InfoS, Inc. v. Registrar Administrator Lew BlanckWIPO Case No. D2000-0069, “The addition of www before the Complainant’s mark […]” is “[…] not sufficient to avoid confusion. Indeed, they appear to be additions designed to take advantage of mistakes that consumers are likely to make when intending to enter Complaint’s website address. Therefore, Complainant has satisfied the first element of its claim”.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of its trademarks or to register the Domain Name incorporating its trademarks. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademarks of the Complainant. Rather, the Domain Name is being used to misleadingly redirect Internet users to a pay-per-click parking site which redirects Internet users to a variety of third-party websites, including the Complainant's direct competitors’ websites.
The Respondent defaulted and failed to respond, and by doing so failed to offer the Panel any type of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or otherwise counter the Complainant’s prima facie case. The only information this Panel has is that in the past the Respondent has been involved in many UDRP procedures in which he had to transfer domains corresponding to well-known trademarks to the legitimate owners.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel notes that the trademark AMADEUS is rather known in relation with the classes for which it has been applied for and – given its renown for those goods and services – the Panel concludes that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the Domain Name consisting of an exact reproduction of the Complainant’s trademark (with the addition of letters “-www”) and decided to redirect it to a pay-per-click parking site containing the Complainant's direct competitors websites.
As for the use of the Domain Name, based on the evidence submitted the Respondent is using it in order to obtain click-through-revenue from the pay-per-click parking site and such circumstance is a clear indication of bad faith (see, among others, Iflscience Limited v. Domains By Proxy LLC / Dr Chauncey Siemens,WIPO Case No. D2016-0909).
In an almost identical case mentioned by the Complainant (VKR Holding A/S v. Domain Admin, Whois protection,WIPO Case No. D2017-0351), the panel found that mere addition of “-www” for a domain name which is connected to a website resolving to pay-per-click links and competitors is evidence of bad faith in registration and use. The Panel so finds in the circumstances of the present case.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under 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 name, be transferred to the Complainant.
Tommaso La Scala
Sole Panelist
Date: November 20, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy