The Complainant is Amadeus IT Group, S.A. of Madrid, Spain, represented by UBILIBET, Spain.
The Respondent is WhoisGuard, Inc., WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, Panama / PAVEL TREMBLAY, TREMBLAY WORLDWIDE CORPORATION of Quebec, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”) and was created on October 7, 2018. It now redirects Internet users to the Complainant’s actual main website. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 2, 2019. On April 2, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 2, 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 April 4, 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 April 5, 2019.
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 April 8, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 28, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 29, 2019.
The Center appointed Richard C.K. van Oerle as the sole panelist in this matter on May 7, 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. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a provider of technology hosting services and services for the global travel sector. It was founded in 1987 in Spain and, nowadays, it operates in 190 markets, with a worldwide team of over 15,000 professionals serving in more than 190 countries, with offices across all continents. It is a publicly listed company and part of the IBEX 35, as well as stock indices worldwide.
The Complainant holds several AMADEUS trademark registrations, including the following:
The Complainant’s International Trademarks registered with WIPO under the Madrid Protocol were originally issued by Germany or Spain and then extended to numerous countries.
The Complainant operates online through its primary website “”.
According to the Registrar, the disputed domain name was registered in the name of a domain privacy service. Following the request for registrar verification in this proceeding, the Registrar identified the registrant as “PAVEL TREMBLAY,” and the registrant’s organization as “TREMBLAY WORLDWIDE CORPORATION” of Saint Jean sur Richelieu, Quebec, Canada. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states that it is a truly global leading provider of technology services for the entire travel ecosystem. The Complainant has been doing business for more than thirty years and owns multiple trademarks worldwide, firstly registered since August 20, 1987.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is completely identical to the Complainant’s trademark, since it incorporates the entirety of the trademark. Further, the use of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.host” next to the term “AMADEUS”, makes closer the connection with the Complainant’s trademark. According to the Complainant, the gTLD “.host” helps create authority and brand positioning for technology companies, consultants and contractors, and the Complainant is a leading provider of technology solutions and services.
Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because, inter alia, (i) the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant in any way; (ii) the Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use the Complainant’s trademarks in any manner, including in domain names; (iii) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; and (iv) by redirecting Internet users to the Complainant’s actual main website “” the Respondent is attempting to deceive Internet users into believing that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant. Furthermore, the Complainant states that the fact that the disputed domain name appears registered and offered for sale reveals how the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and shows that the Respondent is also not making any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
Finally, the Complainant argues that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is a famous mark, that is owned by a benchmark company that has been having a global presence for more than thirty years and is widely known by the general public, and especially in its sector. According to the Complainant, the Respondent either knew or should have known of the Complainant’s trademark when registered the disputed domain name.
The Complainant argues that it is observed that the disputed domain name appears registered and offered for sale. This reveals clearly how the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and shows that the Respondent is also not making any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
Since the disputed domain name in the meantime redirects to the actual main website of the Complainant, the use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent leads to Internet users being deceived into believing that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant when in fact, it is not. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy 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;
II. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
III. the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Considering these requirements, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant’s contentions are justified and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to the Complainant. The Panel gives the following reasons for its decision. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant proves that it has rights in the AMADEUS trademark based on different trademark registrations in the world. The disputed domain name is identical to this trademark. In making the comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name, the gTLD suffix is usually disregarded.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AMADEUS trademark.
The requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name as part of a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate non-commercial use. The Respondent has not come forward claiming any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the Panel does not find so in the present record. In addition, the disputed domain name was registered long after the Complainant started to use and register its trademarks. Furthermore, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the trademark AMADEUS.
In view of the aforementioned and the Panel´s findings below, the Panel is of the opinion that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is of the opinion that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel recalls that the trademark AMADEUS is a well-known trademark and is used and registered long before the disputed domain name was registered. In this case where the Complainant is active in the field of hosting services, the use of the term “host” as gTLD extension increases the confusion. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to redirect to the Complainant’s actual main website. This implies also bad faith: such behavior includes the risk that the Respondent may at any time cause Internet traffic to redirect to a website that is not that of, or associated with, the Complainant (see MySpace, Inc. v. Mari Gomez,WIPO Case No. D2007-1231), and may increase customer confusion that the disputed domain name is somehow licensed or controlled by the Complainant (see PayPal Inc. v. Jon Shanks,WIPO Case No. D2014-0888; Mandarin Oriental Services B.V. v. Domain Administrator, Matama,WIPO Case No. D2017-0615).
The disputed domain name has been offered for sale. This also reveals that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and shows that the Respondent is also not making any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel is of the opinion that registration and use of a domain name in connection with such activities constitutes bad faith under the Policy, and therefore considers the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy to be met. 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.
Richard C.K. van Oerle
Sole Panelist
Date: May 15, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy