The Complainant is CEETIZ of Paris, France, represented by Tmark Conseils, France.
The Respondent is Amar Halli, CEETIZTRIP / C.T. Cityztrip, CITYZTRIP of London, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names and (the “Disputed Domain Names”) are registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 4, 2019. On January 7, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name . On January 7, 2019, 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 Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 9, 2019, 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 January 11, 2019. On January 9, 2019, the Center received an email communication from the Respondent.
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 January 14, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 3, 2019. On January 21 and January 24, 2019, the Respondent submitted two email communications to the Center constituting its Response.
The Center appointed Flip Jan Claude Petillion as the sole panelist in this matter on January 29, 2019. 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.
Before the notification of Panel appointment on January 29, 2019, the Complainant submitted a request by email to the Center on January 17, 2019, requesting the addition of the domain name (“Additional Domain Name”) to this proceeding. The Panel considered the Complainant’s request and requested the Center to obtain registrar verification for the Additional Domain Name from the Registrar. On February 5, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Additional Domain Name. On February 8, 2019, the Panel issued its Procedural Order No. 1 in which it decided to add the Additional Domain Name to the proceeding. On February 8, 2019, the Center formally notified the Respondent of Procedural Order No. 1 and the inclusion of the Additional Domain Name. The Respondent was provided with a period of five calendar days from the date of Procedural Order No. 1 to submit any comments in relation to the Additional Domain Name. On February 12, 2019, the Respondent submitted an email response to the Center containing argumentation regarding the Additional Domain Name. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is CEETIZ, an international online booking platform based in France, which offers a variety of travel, cultural, and tourism services, such as short trips and cruises, and activities such as sports, shows, museums, etc. The Complainant offers its services on its websites in nine different languages and in more than 65 countries in the world.
The Complainant is the holder of several trademark registrations consisting of CEETIZ, which it uses in connection with its booking services. The Complainant’s trademark portfolio includes, inter alia, the following trademark registrations:
- CEETIZ, word mark registered with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) under No. 12828001 on September 23, 2014 in classes 9, 35, and 39;
- CEETIZ, word mark registered with the French National Institute for Intellectual Property (“INPI”) under No. 3865886 on February 3, 2012 in classes 9, 35, 39, 41, and 43;
- CEETIZ, word mark registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) under No. 4773990 of July 14, 2015 in classes 39 and 41.
The Complainant is also the holder of, inter alia, the following domain names through which it provides its services: , , and .
The present proceeding concerns the Disputed Domain Names and . The first Disputed Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on September 10, 2018. The second Disputed Domain Name was registered on October 7, 2018.
Before filing the Complaint, the first Disputed Domain Name used to refer to a website written in French and English, prominently displaying the sign “Ceetiztrip”, and offering travel booking and related services at heavy discounts for a multitude of destinations and activities. After being notified of the Complaint, the Respondent changed the use of the Disputed Domain Name to redirect it to the second Disputed Domain Name . The second Disputed Domain Name currently resolves to a website that is an almost exact copy of the website previously connected to the first Disputed Domain Name , offering the same discounted travel booking services but under the sign “Cityztrip” instead of “Ceetiztrip”. The website connected to the Disputed Domain Name , to which both Disputed Domain Names currently resolve, indicates that the services are provided, and the website is operated, by a company called “COME & GO LTD.”, a tour operator registered in London, United Kingdom. This was also the case for the website previously connected to the first Disputed Domain Name .
On November 7, 2018, the Complainant received a signed complaint letter from an individual who had booked a holiday to Marrakech using the Respondent’s website previously connected to the Disputed Domain Name . The author of the complaint letter, who had clearly mistaken the Complainant for the Respondent, demanded the cancellation and reimbursement of its booking, claiming that he was the victim of false advertising and trap purchasing by the website operator. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to its CEETIZ trademark that it has been using since 2012 and for which it has made considerable investment.
The Complainant further claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Names in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or otherwise fair use, as the Respondent exploits user confusion in order to create a commercial gain for itself. The Complainant asserts that the absence of fair use is evidenced by the fact that the Respondent has reproduced the Complainant’s CEETIZ trademark and part of the Complainant’s team on the websites connected to the Disputed Domain Names. Also, according to the Complainant, the Respondent has never been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names and is no way affiliated with the Complainant.
Finally, the Complainant claims that the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondent knew, or at least should have known of the existence of the Complainant’s trademark and that the Respondent used the Disputed Domain Names primarily for the purpose of attracting, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s websites or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and official websites. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions but did submit three informal email communications constituting its Response. In these communications, the Respondent asserts that he is the owner of “COME & GO LTD.”, a travel booking company registered in London, United Kingdom. The Respondent further claims that it was never his company’s intention to be associated with the Complainant or to confuse consumers. The Respondent also contends that several elements, such as the country of origin, the phone number, the email address and the range of services offered, prevent any confusing similarity between the company of the Respondent and the Complainant. Furthermore, the Respondent claims that it redirected the first Disputed Domain Name to the second Disputed Domain Name after being notified of the Complaint to further avoid any confusion. The Respondent asserts that “cityztrip” consists of common words related to its services and which are also used by other travel companies, such as “Cityzenbooking” and “Cityzeum”. Lastly, the Respondent claims that any similarities between the Complainant’s employees and their position with the Respondent’s team displayed on the website connected to the Disputed Domain Names are purely coincidental. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Inclusion of an Additional Domain Name Following Complaint Notification
The Complaint was originally submitted regarding the Disputed Domain Name . After the Respondent was notified of the Complaint but before the notification of Panel appointment, the Complainant requested that the Additional Domain Name be added to the proceeding.
Requests for addition of domain names to a complaint after it has been notified to the respondent and the proceedings have formally commenced are addressed by the panel on appointment (see section 4.12.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
In the present case, the Panel finds that it is reasonable to allow the inclusion of the Additional Domain Name . Although the WhoIs records indicate that the Additional Domain Name was registered under a different name, namely C.T. Cityztrip, CITYZTRIP, the Panel considers that both Disputed Domain Names are in fact registered by the Respondent. This is evidenced by the fact that both Disputed Domain Names are registered using the same physical address and email address and that the Respondent has confirmed in its Response that he has redirected the Disputed Domain Name to the Additional Domain Name after being notified of the Complaint. The Panel finds that such redirection constitutes sufficient evidence that the Respondent has attempted to frustrate the proceedings upon notification of the Complaint.
Additionally, the Respondent communicated its Response to the Center after being notified of the Complainant’s amended Complaint which included the request to add the Additional Domain Name . The Respondent then addressed the Complainant’s argumentation with regard to the Additional Domain Name in its Response.
The Panel thus considers it fair and equitable to allow that the Additional Domain Name be added to the proceedings. 6.2. Substantive Elements of the Policy
Paragraph 15 of the Rules provides that the Panel is to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
The onus is on the Complainant to make out its case and it is apparent, both from the terms of the Policy and the decisions of past UDRP panels, that the Complainant must show that all three elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been established before any order can be made to transfer the Disputed Domain Name. As the UDRP proceedings are expedited and do not have any evidentiary discovery, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Thus, for the Complainant to succeed it must prove, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, 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.
The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. The Complainant has clearly established that there is a trademark in which it has rights. The Complainant’s CEETIZ trademark has been registered and used in connection to its travel and activities booking services.
The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s CEETIZ trademark in its entirety, merely adding the non-distinctive suffix “trip”.
Although the Disputed Domain Name does not reproduce the Complainant’s CEETIZ trademark in its entirety, there exists a clear phonetic correspondence between the CEETIZ trademark and the dominant part of the Disputed Domain Name, namely “cityz”. There are also visual similarities with the CEETIZ trademark due to the presence of the same consonants (‘C’, ‘T’ and ‘Z’) placed in the same order. This makes the CEETIZ trademark sufficiently recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name for the purposes of the standing requirement of the first element of the UDRP.
The Panel is further of the opinion that the mere addition of non-distinctive text to a complainant’s trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, as set out in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy (see Karen Millen Fashions Limited v. Akili Heidi,WIPO Case No. D2012-1395; Belstaff S.R.L. v. Jason Lau, Sharing,WIPO Case No. D2012-0783; Lime Wire LLC v. David Da Silva / C,WIPO Case No. D2007-1168). The term “trip” does not detract from the identity or confusing similarity of the Disputed Domain Names, as it is a common English word for a “journey” or “excursion”.
Additionally, it is well established that the generic top-level suffix “.com” may be disregarded when considering whether the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Consequently, the Panel finds the Disputed Domain Names to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CEETIZ trademark and the Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of establishing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names.
As established by previous UDRP panels, it is sufficient for the Complainant to make a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names in order to place the burden of production on the Respondent (see section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 ).
The Complainant considers that the Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and/or services and that the Respondent has not made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
In response, the Respondent submits that he has registered and used the Disputed Domain Names to operate his own legitimate business, without intending to confuse consumers or take advantage of the Complainant’s trademark rights. The Respondent considers that any potential confusion that could have existed at the time of filing the Complaint is removed due to the fact that the Respondent is now only using the sign “Cityztrip” instead of “Ceetiztrip” and that the Disputed Domain Name is now redirected to .
Although the WhoIs records for the Disputed Domain Name indicate that the Domain Name was registered using the name “C.T Cityztrip, CITYZTRIP”, the Panel determines that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names. The WhoIs records for the Disputed Domain Name , the Respondent’s communication with the Center, and the Respondent’s websites show that the Respondent’s name is Amar Halli and that the Respondent operates using the commercial name COME & GO LTD. Although the websites connected the Disputed Domain Names indicate(d) that CEETIZTRIP and CITYZTRIP are “registered trademarks of COME & GO LTD”, there are no actual indications that the Respondent has acquired any trademark or service mark rights. The Respondent’s use and registration of the Disputed Domain Names were not authorized by the Complainant. There are no indications that a connection between the Complainant and the Respondent existed.
Moreover, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names. First, the similarity of the Disputed Domain Names with the Complainant’s CEETIZ trademark carries a high risk of implied affiliation. Second, he Disputed Domain Names are linked to a website that purports to offer tourism services, such as the booking of trips or cultural activities, which are either identical or highly similar to the services and activities offered by the Complainant. The fact that the Respondent supposedly provides more services than the Complainant, notably travel and accommodation services, does not take away from the similarity of the provided services.
In addition, the Complainant has showed that the Respondent’s website connected to the Disputed Domain Names reproduces part of the Complainant’s team, as five supposed team members of the Respondent have exactly the same name and position as the employees displayed on the Complainant’s website. The Panel notes that it is highly unlikely that such similarities are purely coincidental, especially considering the circumstances of the case and the similarity of the services.
A panel may conduct limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision. This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name (see section 4.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
Factual research conducted by the Panel into the website to which the Disputed Domain Names currently redirect shows that many of the texts and images used by the Respondent to illustrate the travel destinations and activities supposedly offered are illegally reproduced from the websites of other travel companies competing with the Complainant, such as Les Ateliers Du Voyage, My Little Adventure, Voyage Privé, Voyageurs du Monde, etc. Moreover, the images used by the Respondent to provide information on the company and the separate team members are not genuine as they are reproduced from basic stock image websites. Additionally, many of the indicated prices on the Respondent’s website are heavily discounted and do not seem to correspond to realistic market prices for similar services. All these factors lead the Panel to believe that the Respondent’s website is not genuine, and therefore further prevents the Respondent from invoking any legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Names.
In view of the foregoing, the Panel considers that the Complainant has also made out the second of the three elements that it must establish. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the Disputed Domain Names were registered in bad faith and that they are being used in bad faith (see, e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Control Techniques Limited v. Lektronix Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2006-1052).
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of factors, any one of which may demonstrate bad faith. Among these factors demonstrating bad faith registration and use is the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location.
In the instant case, it is apparent that the Complainant’s registration of its trademark predates the Respondent’s registration of the two Disputed Domain Names. Given the specific field of activity in which both Parties claim to be active, it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and its rights in the CEETIZ trademark when the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names. Especially since both Parties seem to actively target the French market with their website. The Respondent has incorporated the Complainant’s mark in its entirety in the first Disputed Domain Name and used a sign that is phonetically almost identical to the Complainant’s CEETIZ trademark in the second Disputed Domain Name . The inclusion of the word “trip” may even strengthen the likelihood of confusion, as it directly refers to the Complainant’s activities, namely the booking of trips, cruises and cultural activities. Both Domain Names are redirected to a website that offers identical services and activities as those provided by the Complainant through its website. The Panel also observes that the Respondent has reproduced content from the Complainant’s website, notably certain team members, and the websites of the Complainant’s competitors. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent’s awareness of the Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad faith (See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz,WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc. v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070; BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel,WIPO Case No. D2006-0007).
The Panel finds that using the Disputed Domain Names that either incorporate the Complainant’s trademark or use a phonetically identical sign to the Complainant’s trademark, in connection with a website offering identical or highly similar services than the Complainant, creates a likelihood of confusion with the CEETIZ name and associated services of the Complainant. This is evidenced by the fact that the Complainant has received a formal customer complaint directed at the Respondent, accusing the Respondent of false advertising and trap purchases. Together with the fact that a lot of the content on the Respondent’s website does not appear to be genuine and aims to mislead Internet users, this leads the Panel to determine that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. Moreover, the fact that the Respondent decided to redirect the Disputed Domain Name to is a further indication that the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Names in good faith. Additionally, as the Respondent retains control over the redirection, a real or implied ongoing threat to the Complainant persists (see section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
The Respondent had the opportunity to assert and explain his purported rights or legitimate interests but failed to do so convincingly. The Respondent simply denies any association or consumer confusion and contends that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and used in connection to a legitimate business activity unrelated to the Complainant. The Panel finds this argument unconvincing, especially considering the identity of the services and the use of copyrighted content on the website connected to the Disputed Domain Names.
The Panel further notes that the Respondent has used a “robots.txt” mechanism for both Disputed Domain Names, preventing the website content from being accessed in an online archive. Although the use of robots.txt cannot be considered to support an inference of bad faith automatically, the Panel considers it likely that the Respondent sought to prevent access to copyright or trademark infringing content.
Additionally, by using a proxy registration service, the Respondent has taken active steps to conceal its identity (see Fifth Third Bancorp v. Secure Whois Information Service,WIPO Case No. D2006-0696, where it was held that the use of a proxy registration service to avoid disclosing the identity of the real party in interest is also consistent with an inference of bad faith when combined with other evidence of evasive and irresponsible conduct).
Therefore, the Panel finds that, on the balance of probabilities, it is sufficiently shown that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. In light of the above, the Complainant also succeeds on the third and last element 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.
Flip Jan Claude Petillion
Sole Panelist
Date: February 18, 2019.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy